- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 7th October, 2004 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Calcutta in respect of the block period 1989-1990 to 1998-1999 and 01-04-1998 to 19-08-1998.
(2.) The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal by which the addition of a sum of L 4,82,750/- on the ground of undisclosed income was upheld. The assessee has questioned the order of the learned Tribunal on the basis of the following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer that the amount of L 4,82,750/- was "Undisclosed" investment of the petitioner Company by totally giving no credence to the fact produced by the petitioner Company which were substantial nature and thereafter the order passed by the Learned Tribunal ignoring the relevant facts and in taking into consideration irrelevance materials is perverse."
(3.) When can an order be said to be perverse has elaborately been discussed by this Court in its judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Ors. v. Biswanath Mukherjee reported in 1974 CLJ 251 at p. 313 as follows:- "It is, however, equally well settled that even in a writ petition under Article 226, the Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on any question of fact which the Tribunal is competent to decide, if the Court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and the finding of the Tribunal is considered to be perverse, if:- (a)The Tribunal has come to the finding on no evidence. (b) The Tribunal has based the finding on materials not admissible and has excluded relevant materials. (c) The Tribunal has not applied its mind to all the relevant materials and has not considered the same in coming to the conclusion. (d) The Tribunal has come to the conclusion by considering material which is irrelevant or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant. (e) The Tribunal has disabled itself in reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case. (f) The Tribunal has based its finding upon conjectures, surmises and suspicion. (g) The Tribunal has based the finding upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found. (h) If the Tribunal in conducting the enquiry has acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or has violated the principles of natural justice, where no particular procedure is prescribed. 81. In any of the above cases and in any other case where the Court, in the particular facts of the case, considers the finding of the Tribunal to be perverse and where the Court is of the opinion that justice of the case so requires, the Court is entitled to interfere and set aside the finding of the Tribunal on any question of fact. In such cases, the Court holds that there is an error of law on any of the above grounds." ;