Unexplained cash credits: inference on income or capital receipt was a finding of fact, not a question of law.

The inference whether unexplained cash credits constituted income from undisclosed sources or capital receipts depended on appreciation of proved facts, so it was treated as a finding of fact rather than a question of law. The Tribunal's view that the cash credits were not assessable as income, despite the explanation being found false, was therefore within its fact-finding jurisdiction. On that basis, no referable question of law arose and the Revenue's challenge to the refusal to refer the questions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the cash credits did not represent the assessee's income gave rise to a question of law, or whether it was a final finding of fact.

Analysis: The explanation for the cash credits was found to be false, but the Tribunal nevertheless concluded that, considering the circumstances, the amounts could not be treated as profits earned by a newly commenced construction company. The inference to be drawn from proved facts as to whether the credits represented income from undisclosed sources or capital receipts was treated as a factual determination. In the absence of a demonstrably legal question, the Tribunal's conclusion remained within the domain of fact-finding and was not open to reference as a question of law.

Conclusion: The conclusion that no question of law arose was correct, and the finding that the cash credits were not assessable as income was a finding of fact.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the Revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to refer the questions was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the inference whether unexplained cash credits constitute income or capital receipt depends on the appreciation of proved facts, the determination is one of fact and does not, by itself, raise a question of law.

---