Concurrent findings of fact on commencement of business did not raise a substantial question of law absent perversity.

Concurrent factual findings that the assessee commenced business on 8-1-1997 were upheld because no perversity was shown, and the earlier finding that business had begun in the last quarter of the relevant financial year had already attained finality. On that basis, the appellate court held that no substantial question of law arose from the finding on commencement of business and left it undisturbed. The text also states that the Revenue succeeded on the issue of commencement of business and the allowability of pre-commencement expenditure, reflecting the limited scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact absent perversity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent finding that the assessee commenced business on 8-1-1997 gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference in appeal.

Analysis: The authorities below had concurrently found, on the facts, that the assessee commenced its business on 8-1-1997 when it accepted the offer for import of materials. The earlier finding that business had commenced in the last quarter of the relevant financial year had already attained finality. No perversity in the concurrent factual conclusion was shown.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the finding on commencement of business was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the Revenue succeeded on the issue of commencement of business and allowability of pre-commencement expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact, absent perversity, do not give rise to a substantial question of law under the appellate jurisdiction.

---