SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) FIRM Sidh Gopal Gajanand was, on 21st Jan., 1954, assessed to income-tax for the asst. yr.. 1949- 50 in the status of a registered firm. On 16th March, 1966, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that-- "Part of the cloth manufactured by India United Mills Ltd. Bombay, during the accounting year (the decontrol period) was sold through Messsrs Sidhgopal Gajanand which has a branch in the name of Ganga Textiles at Kanpur. This is an AOPs and has earned about Rs. 80 lacs from this cloth business during the decontrol period. I have a reason to believe that this income of Rs. 80 lacs has escaped assessment on account of assessee's failure to file a return under S. 22 (1) ".
(2.) ULTIMATELY the matter went up to the Tribunal. It, inter alia, held that the Department has failed to prove by cogent evidence that this AOPs had earned any on-money. Therefore, there was no basis to assess it on escapement of income of nearly Rs. 60 lacs, as has been done by the Income Tax Officer. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and we are satisfied that the finding on the question that the Department has failed to establish that the AOPs earned any income outside the books is a finding of fact. It is not vitiated by any error low. It cannot be said that there was no material to sustain it. It cannot also be held that it was based upon a consideration of any non- admissible or irrelevant material.
(3.) IN view of this finding, the variety of questions, some of which undoubtedly are of law, become merely of academic value. No useful purpose will be served by requiring the Tribunal to refer them for our opinion, because ultimately the result will be the same.;