: J. V. Gupta, J. - In this petition u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the petitioner has sought a mandamus for directing the IT Appl. Tribunal, Chandigarh, to refer the following question of law, for the opinion of this Court :
'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal contained in paragraph 6 of its order that the sum of Rs. 1,65,000 being available with the assessee was never, in fact, advanced to the third party, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the said sum from the income of the assessee ?'
The application for making a reference, made by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Tribunal with the following observations.
'On the basis of testimony of six parties (to whom the assessee individual claimed to have advanced loans of Rs. 1,65,000, the ITO concluded that the said amount was never advanced to the six parties by the assessee. The ITO, however, declined to reduce the amount (nature and source of which had to be explained u/s 68, IT Act) on the plea that the assessee did not admit having lent merely name to the said six parties. The AAC as well as the Tribunal held that in view of the ITOs own finding of fact, the amount of Rs. 1,65,000 continued to be available with the assessee and that thus the nature and source of only the balance of Rs. 2,82,095 had to be explained by the assessee. The said finding was in our view, in the facts of the case, only a finding of fact and it gives rise to no question of law.'
2. After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties at a great length and going through the order of the Tribunal dt. 3-10-1975, we are of the opinion that no question of law as such arises from that order and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application.
3. Moreover, from the order of the AAC as well, we find that he accepted the contention of the assessee that the said amount belonged to the parties mentioned in his order and, thus, the assessee was entitled to set off that amount from the peak worked out by him. On appeal, the Tribunal has affirmed that order.
4. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
B. S. Dhillon J. - I agree.