9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, is that the material on record has not been considered by the Tribunal and, as such, the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is vitiated. His further submission is that Jagdish Prasad who is alleged to have advanced a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the assessee was examined as a witness, but he was not questioned as to his capacity for advancing a loan of Rs. 20,000. We have gone through the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. Learned counsel referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT v. K.S. Kannan Kunhi [1973] 87 ITR 395 in support of his submission that a question was not put to the witness, Jagdish Prasad, about his capacity to advance the loan of Rs. 20,000. In K.S. Kannan Kunhi's case [1973] 87 ITR 395, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the explanation advanced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse or that the material on record has been ignored. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is essentially one of fact and no question of law arises. The Tribunal was justified in refusing to make a reference to this court. The application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is dismissed as no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
