Factual findings based on earlier decisions of the Tribunal do not give rise to questions of law.

U.L. Bhat, C.J.

1. These are applications filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute relates to assessments for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 as also penalty proceedings for the year 1973-74.

2. The respondent's husband, the late Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal, filed a return for the assessment year 1972-73 on February 29, 1973, on behalf of his Hindu undivided family. He showed the income of Rs. 32,634. The income was an income from immovable property as well as income from two foreign liquor shops and share of income from three firms. On January 20, 1975, he filed a revised return showing the income of Rs. 29,570 as an individual and contending that there was a partial partition of the Hindu undivided family on March 30, 1970. According to his version, in the partial partition, the movables were divided amongst the members while the immovable property was left undivided. He did not maintain regular books of account. On February 10, 1974, certain documents were seized. They showed investment in the immovable property in the names of two sons and obtaining country liquor contracts in their names. The assessee was managing by virtue of the power of attorney executed by the two sons.

3. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied that the acquisition of the business in the names of the two sons was benami. He issued notice to show cause why the income of the two sons should not be added to the income of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. The reply set up a plea of partial partition in which allegedly cash amount was given to the two sons who started business with such amount. The Income-tax Officer rejected the plea of partial partition and made assessment against the assessee treating him as a Hindu undivided family. It appears that this order was substantially confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Both parties filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Department, upheld the partial partition set up, directed deletion of income of the two sons of the assessee and allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal also dismissed the application under Section 256(1) of the Act.

4. The Tribunal in the appellate order accepted the plea of partial partition relying on the Tribunal's earlier order in the appeal related to the assessment year 1971-72. Though the reference application contains a statement that an application has been filed in the High Court regarding the assessment year 1971-72 also under Section 256(2) of the Act challenging the partial partition, the particulars of the application are not given.

5. The finding sought to be challenged is essentially a finding of fact based on an earlier finding of the Tribunal. We do not think that any question of law arises requiring direction to the Tribunal to state a case. The finding that the business docs not stand in the name of the sons benami for the benefit of the father has been arrived at on a consideration of plea of partial partition and other circumstances. This also does not give rise to any question of law. This is so in respect of the three applications in relation to three assessment years. Penalty proceedings are only consequential. Applications are dismissed.