SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. - (1.) IN this reference under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1963-64 and 1965-66 the following questions have been referred : "1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that it has not been esta- blished that the assessee chose to forgo the interest from the two debtors, namely, M/s Chitrabani and M/s Chitralok, on ground of commercial expediency and the circumstances in which the interest was forgone are shrouded in mystery, are based on mere conjecture, surmise and suspicion and/or are perverse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no oral or documentary evidence to show that M/s Chitralok was financially unsound at any particular point of time and the reasons for making the advances was not substantiated is based on mere conjecture and surmise and/or is perverse ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in including the interest from two debtors, namely, M/s Chitrabani and M/s Chitralok, in the income of the assessee ?"
(2.) FOR the asst. yr. 1965-66 an additional question was referred which is as follows : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the action of the assessee in not charging interest to Commercial Industries (India) Private Ltd., similarly viewed by the Tribunal for want of evidence in establishing the assessee's claim that there was mutual agreement requiring the assessee to surrender the in-terest on grounds of commercial expediency is based on mere surmise, suspicion and conjecture and/or is perverse ?" The rival contentions of the parties have been set out in the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has noted in the order the contentions for giving up the interest for these two years from those two debtors. After considering all the evidence which the Tribunal has discussed in detail, the Tribunal in para. 19, observed as follows: "We have given careful and anxious thought to the rival contentions advanced by both the sides. Coming to the main question of the additions made on account of the transaction with M/s Chitralok and Chitrabani, we concur in the findings of the lower authorities. There was not even an agreement reduced to writing in the case of M/s Chitralok when such huge amounts were advanced. The assessee was not able to give us the present financial condition, whereabouts or activities of M/s Chitralok or its partners. There was no oral or documentary evidence to show that M/s Chitralok was financially unsound at any particular point of time. The reasons for making advance were not substantiated and it was merely stated that the advances were made by the assessee to M/s Chitralok in connection with the distribution or production of some film".
(3.) HAVING regard to the evidence adduced, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to a correct decision and the questions posed must be answered against the assessee.;