Tribunal finding on genuineness of partnership sustained where material supported inference and suspicion alone was not decisive.

A Tribunal's factual finding that an alleged partnership was not a genuine firm was sustained because it rested on relevant material circumstances, including the absence of adjustment entries, the deletion of the former proprietary interest from the deed, no written notice to insurers, continued use of existing bank accounts and powers of attorney, and no fresh appointment letters. Remarks on possible motive were treated as observations on probabilities, not as the basis of the decision. The order was therefore not shown to be founded on no material or on conjecture alone, and the refusal to call for a reference on the first question was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court erred in refusing to call for a reference on the question whether the Tribunal's finding that the firm seeking registration was not a genuine firm was unsupported by material and vitiated by conjectures, surmises and suspicions.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion was supported by material circumstances, including the absence of adjustment entries on the withdrawal of the earlier partner, the disappearance of the former proprietary interest from the partnership deed, the absence of written communication to the insurance companies, the continuance of bank accounts and powers of attorney as before, and the lack of fresh appointment letters for the new firm. The Tribunal's comments on the possible motive for the new arrangement were treated as observations on probabilities and not as the foundation of the finding. Read as a whole, the order was not shown to have been based on no material or to have been vitiated in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The High Court rightly declined to call for a reference on the first question, and the assessee's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that the alleged partnership was not a real firm was upheld as being supported by material, and the refusal to refer the first question was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal's finding of fact is not vitiated merely because some observations on motive or suspicion appear in its order, so long as the conclusion is supported by relevant material and is not founded on conjecture alone.

---