JUDGMENT
1. This is an application by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :
"Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that addition of Rs. 5,77,53,675 made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of silver for the work done allegedly on job was not justified irrespective of the fact that the assessee could not prove his claim by producing documentary evidence including primary evidence of giving correct and complete name and address of the so-called customers that silver was received from customers ?"
The contention of the assessee is that he has been manufacturing silver chains on job basis and for that he is taking the making charges from the customers. Total receipt of the making charges was returned.
2. The Revenue did not accept the contention of the assessee that he is engaged in doing job work. The vouchers issued by the assessee showing the Weight and making charges were not believed and considering the total weight of silver, as shown in the vouchers, the assessing authority concluded that investment made in that silver remained unexplained. He held that the total weight of silver under such vouchers came to 9,532.247 kgs. Applying the rate of Rs. 6,000 per kg., addition of Rs. 5,71,93,482 was made against the assessee.
3. When the dispute was carried to the Appellate Tribunal in appeal, the Tribunal found that the assessee was engaged only in the job work and all the vouchers issued by the assessee pertained to that activity. The Tribunal clearly stated in the order that in the past also, the assessee carried on the job work and the assessee's version was always accepted. The Tribunal also observed that in some of the vouchers, complete details of the parties were mentioned, but in most of the vouchers, addresses were not given.
4. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the assessing authority interrogated the parties whose addresses were given in some of the vouchers. This clinches the issue. Even if the complete details of the parties were not given in all the vouchers, complete details were given at least in some of the vouchers and the Department was free to interrogate at least those parties.
5. On these facts, we do not see that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the assessee was engaged only in job work was perverse.
6. It is patent that the finding that the assessee is engaged in job work is a finding of fact and no question of law arises therefrom.
7. For the reasons, we decline to direct the Tribunal to refer the abovementioned question for the opinion of this court.
8. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed.