A finding of the Appellate Tribunal on a question of pure fact is liable to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference if there is no evidence to support the finding of fact be if it is perverse.

1. In this case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of the High Court under Sec. 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :-

-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the two amounts of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 20,500 are liable to be taxed by the Income-tax Department as secreted profits by the assessee."

2. The assessee had taken a lease of several forests from the Government and used to sell the timber. For the "assessment year 1945-40 the Income tax Officer found in the course of examination of the account books that there were cash credits to the extent of Rs. 61,000 in the capital account. It appears that on the 12th May 1944, the assessee had pledged gold coins with one Ghanshyamdas Gobardhandas of Banaras for securing a loan of Rs. 20,500. There was another sum of Rs. 5,000 obtained by the assessee on the 3rd November 1944, by pledging a gold necklace with one Nowarttandas Purusottamdas of village Barra. As regards the balance of Rs. 35,500 the case of the assessee was that the amount was raised on the mortgage of the zamindari income. The assessee filed a written explanation before the Income-tax Officer with regard to the source of these cash credits. It was alleged by the assessee that the gold coins used by him for securing the loan of Rs. 20, 500 were received from his wife and there is mention in the partition deed of the year 1912 about the allotment of the gold coins. As regards the amount of Rs. 5,000, the case of the assessee was that this amount was secured by pledging a gold necklace weighing about 60 tolas. This gold necklace belonged to the Chhoti Babu, the wife of Madho Prasad, and the ornament was given to the Chhoti Bahu as mentioned in the partition deed.

The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and held that the entire amount of Rs. 61,000 should be taxed as the secreted income of the assessee. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the views of the Income-tax Officer and confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was then taken upon appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and by its order dated the 10th March 1956, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and remanded the case to him for the purpose of considering certain document produced by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner made a detailed inquiry into the matter and found that the batwaranama was a genuine document. The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is based upon the affidavits sworn by Sri Mukundram, the only member of the panchayat who was alive. It appears that Mukundram was also examined on oath before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, There was also an affidavit filed by Chandradhar Avasthi, Proprietor of the firm Ghanshyamdas Gobardhandas of Banaras, dated the 2nd June, 1950. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also noticed that the transaction of pledging was recorded in the rokar bahi of the said Chandradhar Avasthi. With regard to the amount of Rs. 5,000, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation of the assessee that the amount was borrowed on the pledging of the gold necklace. This transaction is noted in the rokar bahi of the assessee and moreover in the partition deed it is mentioned that a gold hasuli weighing 60 tolas has been allotted to the share of the Chhoti Bahu, namely, the wife o£ Madho Prasad. On these materials the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the explanation of the assessee was true and the amount of Rs. 5,000 represented the amount of the loan secured by the assessee on the pledging of the gold ornament. Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner there was an appeal taken by the Income-tax Department to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal refused to believe the explanation of the assessee and held that the amount of Rs. 25,500 was liable to be taxed in the hands of the a