1. JUDGMENT : Prem Chand Jain, J. - The CIT has filed this application u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the issuance of a mandamus to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law, which arise out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 12-9-1976 :
"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs. 28,600 on Paddy Account is vitiated by ignoring of legal and admissible material and acceptance of irrelevant and inadmissible consideration ?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,400 sustained by the AAC in the Bardana Account ?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in affirming the deletion of Rs. 11,450 in the Rice Bran Account ?"
2. It would be unnecessary to rewrit all the facts which have been given in detail in the order of the Tribunal dt. 31-7-1976, by which the application filed by the CIT, u/s 256(1) of the Act, was rejected.
3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and find that no question of law arises, which may require our decision. The Tribunal is right that the deletion or addition to the Paddy Account, Bardana Account and Rice Bran account, was made on appraisal of the material on the record. Mr. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, ld. counsel for the revenue, has failed to point out any material admissible evidence which was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal or any irrelevant inadmissible evidence on which reliance might have been placed by the Tribunal. On the facts found by the Tribunal on the appraisal of the evidence on the record, the aforesaid question do not require any decision of this court.
4. consequently, this petition is dismissed, but without there being any order as to costs.