Dipak Kumar Sen, J. - (1.)In this reference, the question referred under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was as follows :
" Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest thereon was the assessee's income from undisclosed sources was perverse on the facts and in the circumstances of this case ? "

(2.)A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the revenue to the effect that this question which was reframed and made absolute at the time of the hearing of the rule should not be answered inasmuch as the assessee never called upon the Tribunal to refer this question and the same did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
(3.)The questions which according to the assessee arose but of the order of the Tribunal and which the assessee wanted to be referred to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Act were as follows :
" 1. Whether, on the facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal's finding about the genuineness of the loan of Rs. 10,000 from Sri Surana was based upon a misunderstanding or misconstruction of a material document like the said certificate of Sri Surana containing his income-tax file number in confirmation of the said loan transaction ? 2. Whether, without proper appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in arriving at its finding about that loan by overlooking or ignoring a crucial fact or document, namely, the failure of the ITO to verify the said income-tax file number and/or signature of Sri Surana as noted in his said certificate ? 3. Whether, in view of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, the Tribunal could lawfully hold that the addition of the loan of Rs. 10,000 with interest thereon as the assessee's income from undisclosed source was justified ? "