Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) As directed by this court, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70, the following questions have been referred to this court: I.T. Ref. No. 493 of 1975: " 1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold that Sri R.S. Goenka was given commission not on the basis that he rendered service to the assessee but because he happened to be the son of Sri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies ?
(2.) Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence on material and on failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ?
(3.) Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ? " I.T. Ref. No. 494 of 1975 : "1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold that Sri R.S. Goenka and Sri S.K. Goenka were given commission not on the basis that they rendered services to the assessee but because they happened to be the sons of Sri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies ? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or material and on a failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ?" I. T. Ref. No, 495 of 1975 : "1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold that Sri R.S. Goenka was given commission not on the basis that he rendered services to the assessee but because he happened to be the son of Sri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or material and on failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ?" I.T. Ref. No. 511 of 1975 "1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it would hold that Shri R.S. Goenka and Shri S.K. Goenka were given commission not on the basis that they rendered services to the assessee but because they happened to be the sons of Shri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies ? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or material and on a failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ?" I.T. Ref. No. 512 of 1975 "1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could held that Sri R.S. Goenka and Sri S.K. Goenka were given commission not on the basis that they rendered services to the assessee but because they happened to be the sons of Sri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies ? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or material and on a failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ?" I.T. Ref. No. 513 of 1975 "1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold that Shri R.S. Goenka was given commission not on the basis that he rendered services to the assessee but because he happened to be the son of Sri A.L. Goenka, an influential executive of certain companies ? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or material and on a failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive?" I.T. Ref. No. 514 of 1975 "1. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal on which it could hold that Shri R.S. Goenka and Shri S.K. Goenka were given commission not on the basis that they rendered services to the assessee but because they happened to be sons of Shri A.L. Goenka ? 2. Whether, the said finding of the Tribunal is based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or material and on a failure to consider the relevant material on record and is perverse ? 3. Whether, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the evidence produced by the assessee was not contemporary and was obtained or given with a motive ?" 2. As would be apparent, there are three different questions for three different years dealing with the relevant assessment years. The facts are more or less, of course, identical. The assessee is a company and carries on advertising agency business. The assessment years, as we have mentioned hereinbefore, are 1963-64 to 1969-70, and the relevant accounting years are the earlier calendar years 1962 to 1968, respectively. The assessee had paid commission to Sri R.S. Goenka and S.K. Goenka, as according to the assessee-company, these persons secured the business from various concerns as tabulated below : JUDGEMENT_594_ITR138_1982Html1.htm 3. Sri R.S. Goenka was born on 7th September, 1942, and is the son of Sri A.L. Goenka, who was the director of the assessee up to 1956. Sri R.S. Goenka started securing the business, as it is alleged, for the asses-see in 1956 at the age of 15 years. He passed his M.Com. in 1966 and LL.B. in 1967 and he also enrolled himself as an advocate. It must be borne in mind, as was emphasised on behalf of the assessee, that during the relevant previous years with which we are concerned, R.S. Goenka, was not a minor and had attained majority. The assessee in its letter dated 10th December, 1956, addressed to R.S. Goenka recorded as follows : "With reference to our discussion with you, we hereby confirm that we agree to pay you commission @ 5% on the total business that will be placed with us by (1) Orient General Industries Ltd., (2) C. & E. Morton India Ltd., in consideration of your being successful in securing us the publicity business of the aforesaid parties, who had told us of their decision to place their business with some other agency from the year 1957 onwards. We also agree to pay you commission at 5% in respect of any other parties whose business may be placed with us through your efforts. It should be distinctly understood that this commission will be payable to you only on the completed business and not merely on the contract that we may enter into with the said client. We trust that you will be successful in persuading the said parties to place their business with us, which will receive our best attention and service. We also hope that you will be able to secure some more accounts to our mutual interest.";