JUDGMENT
1. Our direction to the Tribuna1 is sought by the Revenue that the Tribunal be asked to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,76,067 being unexplained investment in getting the drafts purchased through Shri Bhagwan Das, munim of the firm, ignoring the facts that the drafts to the tune of Rs. 3.2 lakhs were found credited in the books of account of one, Krishna and Bros., Guntur, who admittedly supplied the goods to Khem Chand and Sons, the assessee in whose books the said amount remained unrecorded, while Shri Bhagwan Das could not substantiate his statement including capacity ?
(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 91,553 being the addition sustained by the first appellate authority as extra profit against the purchases through unaccounted drafts to the tune of Rs. 14.76 lakhs, ignoring the facts that the sales were suppressed inasmuch as the purchases were made through the said drafts out of regular books of account ?"
2. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the assessing authority noticed as many as 28 drafts having been purchased by Shri Bhagwan Das who is a munim of the assessee-firm. Shri Bhagwan Das also purchased 14 drafts which stand credited in the books of the assessee. So far as the 14 drafts are concerned, there is no controversy, because they are duly credited in the books of the assessee.
3. So far as the 28 drafts are concerned, Shri Bhagwan Das was examined and then he stated that those drafts had been purchased by him. These drafts are not credited in the books of the assessee, simply because Shri Bhagwan Das happened to be the munim of the assessee, the assessing authority saying that Bhagwan Das had no capacity to purchase the drafts himself, concluded that those drafts also had been purchased by Shri Bhagwan Das for the assessee and further taking the view that the amount of 28 drafts was utilised in the business of the assessee, undisclosed profits to the extent of Rs. 91,553 were added in the hands of the assessee by applying six per cent. net profit.
4. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in his statement, Shri Bhagwan Das stated that he had been carrying on his own business of earning commission on the sale of builty and by purchasing drafts for his traders ; that he had shown such income as his own, that the parties in whose favour drafts were prepared were traced and the amounts were found credited in their accounts. On these facts, the Tribunal took the view that 28 drafts had been purchased by Shri Bhagwan Das on his own account and that there was no nexus between those drafts and the assessee. Also the Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the fall in the gross profits.
5. There is nothing on record to indicate that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is, in any way, perverse. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact and in our view no question of law arises therefrom.
6. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected with costs.