Tribunal factual findings stand unless perverse; suspicion alone cannot replace proof of the evidentiary link.

A Tribunal's factual finding is ordinarily final in reference proceedings and can be challenged as a question of law only if it is unsupported by evidence or is perverse. Suspicious circumstances alone do not justify interference where the necessary evidentiary link is missing. On the facts discussed, the Tribunal held that the fixed deposit in another person's name was not proved to be concealed income of the assessee firm, and that conclusion was supported by evidence. The absence of proof connecting the assessee to the deposit meant no referable question of law arose, so the refusal to call for a reference was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the fixed deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs in the name of Sheo Prasad Agarwalla did not represent the concealed income of the assessee firm gave rise to a question of law and was perverse.

Analysis: A finding of fact by the Tribunal is ordinarily final in reference proceedings. It becomes open to challenge as erroneous in law only where there is no evidence to support it or where it is perverse. Even if the surrounding circumstances create suspicion, the High Court cannot interfere merely because it might have drawn a different inference on reappreciation of the evidence. In the present matter, the Tribunal found that while the transaction raised suspicion, the necessary evidentiary link connecting the assessee with the October 11, 1944 deposit was lacking. The existence of suspicious circumstances, without proof of that connection, was insufficient to convert the finding into a question of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding was one of fact supported by evidence and was not perverse; no referable question of law arose against the assessee on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the refusal to call for a reference was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal's factual inference is not open to reference merely because it may appear suspicious or capable of another view; it is challengeable only if unsupported by evidence or perverse, and suspicion cannot substitute for proof.

---