JUDGMENT R.K. Gulati, J.
1. These are three applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), relating to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 and arise from a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, New Delhi.
2. The assessments for the disputed years were made under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income. These assessments were set aside under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, to be made de novo, on the ground that the said assessments were erroneous and pre judicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, on appeal by the asses-
see, against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal restored the assessment orders and vacated the orders passed by the Commissioner. The applications under Section 256(1) having been dismissed, the Commissioner has now come up in these applications. The following two questions, said to be questions of law, are proposed in these applications :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there were no material before the Commissioner of Income-tax to justify his finding that the assessment made under Section 143(1) was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?
2. Whether the Tribunal's order is wrong on facts and in law in taking into consideration incorrect facts and facts not relevant to the case and ignoring relevant facts and findings in the orders under appeal ?"
3. The assessments were set aside basically on three grounds (i) that the Income-tax Officer has accepted the initial capital investment and income versions for the three years without making any inquiry; (ii) that the factum of certain loans advanced by the assessee should have been looked into in all its ramifications. It was also observed that the said loans were advanced by the assessee after winding up her business and (iii) that no details of sundry debtors, cash in hand and stocks were given in the returns, or in the accompanying statements.
4. On a perusal of the returns, statements of income and Other documents filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, the Tribunal has found that there was no fresh capital investment during the years in dispute and whatever investment was there, it was made in the earlier year, namely, in the assessment year 1982-83. Another finding of the Tribunal was that the assessee had not wound up her business of advancing loans, as held by the Commissioner. In fact, the assessee was being assessed for future years including the year 1987-88. The Tribunal also referred to a circular issued by the Directorate of Inspection (Income and Audit) being Circular No. 176 dated August 26, 1987, addressed to all the Commissioners of Income-tax with regard to assessments framed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The said circular stated that no remedial action under Section 263 is necessary in "summary assessment" where glaring and apparent mistakes in the computation of income have been detected resulting in loss of revenue: In the ultimate analysis, the findings of the Tribunal were to the following effect:
"After closely perusing the statements of income filed, to which brief reference has been made above, copies of which have been made available, as also other factors regarding assessment of Shri Hari Om Aggarwal, I vacate the Commissioner's orders as totally unjustified Assessments under Section 143(1) cannot be said to be having lesser value than assessments framed under Section 143(3) when all details are given. In this particular case, it was not that income was- declared from some unknown business but the nature and premises were clearly indicated and it is to project this aspect that statement of income for the assessment year 1982-83 has been noticed in this order. Further, not only the business continued after the loans of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 29,000 but the income also has been substantially higher."
5. Learned standing counsel, appearing for the Revenue, was unable to bring any material to our notice which could justify the conclusion that the orders of assessment were in any manner erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The categorical finding of the Tribunal is that the assessment orders were not erroneous, much less prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In any case, whether an assessment order, on the given facts of a case, is erroneous or not, is essentially a question of fact. The finding to that effect cannot be interfered with unless the same is based on no material or such finding is arbitrary and perverse. The position in the instant case is not so.
6. As to the second question, learned standing counsel was again not in a position to point out as to which wrong fact formed the basis of the Tribunal's decision and which relevant facts and findings came to be ignored by the Tribunal while passing its order in dealing with the appeal giving rise to these reference applications. We have also not been able to lay our hands on any such wrong facts or material which may have influenced the decision of the Tribunal. On the contrary, the decision of the Tribunal is based on relevant facts and consideration and appreciation of the material brought before it.
7. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact and does not give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, all the three applications are rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs.