DHANRAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by these three applications moved under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer five questions of law mentioned in the applications for the opinion of this Court.

(2.) IT will not be out of question to refer here that in the applications moved before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under s. 256(1) of the Act, the common question proposed by the assessee to be referred for the opinion of the High Court was as under :

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the important and material evidence was ignored by the Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal is based on wrong presumption, the evidence has been misread by the Tribunal and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse, which are not supported by any legal evidence and since the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and are based on misreading of the evidence and are not supported by legal evidence, they give rise to the question of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over five judgments. It is not necessary to refer all these cases in this judgment because there is no dispute so far as the proposition of law enunciated in these judgments is concerned. The proposition that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in these judgments is that the improper rejection of the material and relevant evidence; that if the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse and is not supported by any evidence and ignoring the material evidence and if the findings are based on wrong presumption then that may give rise to a question of law, on which a reference can be called. But in the present case, after going through the judgment passed by the Tribunal (though not on record but was shown to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner), we are of the opinion that it is not a case in which the Tribunal has either ignored the important or material evidence or it has based its findings on wrong presumption of the facts. It is, also, not a case of misreading the evidence. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are purely findings of fact which are supported by the legal evidence.