Scope of reference under Section 60: factual findings cannot be overturned absent perversity or no evidential basis.

Scope of a reference under Section 60 was examined, reiterating that appellate interference with findings of fact is impermissible unless findings are without any evidence, perverse, or reached by improperly rejecting material evidence or acting on irrelevant material so as to raise a question of law; the High Court set aside detailed factual findings without indicating why they were unsustainable or how a question of law arose. The High Court's answer was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration limited to questions of law rather than mere factual appreciation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in answering the reference in favour of the assessee by setting aside the Tribunal's and revenue authorities' factual findings that income from 60.79 acres of unregistered coffee area was not included in the accounts, and whether the reference raised a question of law or merely questions of fact.

Analysis: The Court reviewed the scope of a reference under Section 60 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 and reiterated the established distinction between questions of law and questions of fact. It observed that interference with findings of fact in a reference is impermissible unless the findings are without any evidence or are perverse, or unless the Tribunal or authority reached its conclusion by improperly rejecting material evidence or by acting on irrelevant material so as to raise a question of law. The Court found that the High Court had set aside the detailed factual findings of the assessing and appellate authorities without indicating any basis for doing so, and that the High Court's brief observations did not show why those findings were unsustainable or that the matter involved a question of law rather than questions of fact arising from appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court's answer to the reference is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the reference in accordance with law, taking into account that only questions of law (and not mere differences in factual appreciation) are properly answerable on reference.

---