Tribunal's factual findings and consideration of material evidence ruled sufficient; no referable question of law arose on reference.

The Supreme Court held that questions 1 to 3 raised no referable question of law because the controversy was essentially factual and the Tribunal had considered the relevant material, including the agency arrangement, evidence of alleged sub-agents, and surrounding correspondence. The Court reaffirmed that a Tribunal must take account of all material evidence, but found that requirement satisfied on the record, and that isolated items relied on by the assessees did not undermine the factual conclusions. The High Court was therefore right to decline a reference on those questions, and the factual findings against the assessee companies were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's findings that no commission was payable to the selling agent and that the reassessment proceedings were valid gave rise to any referable question of law, and whether the Tribunal failed to consider material evidence so as to vitiate its factual conclusions.

Analysis: The appeals arose from the High Court's refusal to direct reference of questions framed under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, except the challenge relating to reassessment. The Court held that the controversy in questions 1 to 3 was essentially factual, but examined the record to see whether any material evidence had been ignored. It found that the Tribunal had considered the relevant material, including the agency arrangement, the evidence concerning alleged sub-agents, and the surrounding correspondence, and that the isolated items relied upon by the appellants did not displace the Tribunal's factual conclusions. The principle that the Tribunal must consider all material evidence was reaffirmed, but it was held that this requirement had been satisfied on the facts.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from questions 1 to 3, and the High Court was right in declining to direct a reference on those questions. The dismissal of the appeals therefore stood.

Final Conclusion: The factual findings against the assessee companies were upheld, and the refusal to compel a reference on the first three questions was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal has considered the material evidence and its factual findings are reasonably supported by the record, no question of law arises merely because the assessee seeks a different appreciation of that evidence.

---