Evidentiary findings on speculation loss do not create a question of law when based on proof and record assessment.

The Tribunal's rejection of the assessee's speculation loss claim rested on appraisal of evidence, including defects in the account books, absence of a broker's account, lack of a sauda nondh, and unexplained cash credits. The burden of proving the loss lay on the assessee, and the finding was factual rather than legal. A conclusion reached on evidentiary evaluation does not become a question of law merely because it is challenged as erroneous. No question of law arose for reference to the High Court, and refusal of reference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee failed to prove speculation losses of Rs. 1,58,080 gave rise to any question of law requiring reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal disbelieved the claim of speculation loss on a review of the evidence, noting defects in the account books, absence of a broker's account, lack of a sauda nondh, and unexplained cash credits. The burden to prove the losses lay on the assessee, and the Tribunal's conclusion was based on appreciation of evidence. A finding reached on such evidentiary evaluation does not, by itself, become a question of law merely because it is challenged as erroneous.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding, and the High Court was right in refusing reference on that issue.

---