Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) Following three questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee to rely on and in relying on the books of account of the assessee and the memo and voucher which were produced before the Tribunal for the first time ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal relied on inadmissible evidence and did not take into consideration all relevant material and ignored relevant material and/or acted partly on irrelevant material in coming to the finding that there was, in fact, only one transaction of rupees four lakhs on October 30, 1950, and in deleting the sum of rupees four lakhs treated by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and whether such finding is based on evidence which does not cover all the essential points and is contrary to and/or inconsistent with the material and evidence on record and is otherwise unreasonable and/or perverse ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the material and evidence of the case before it, the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal ?"
(2.) This reference relates to the assessment year 1951-52 for which the relevant accounting period ended on June 30, 1950.
(3.) The facts as stated in the statement of case by the Tribunal are as follows : The dispute between the assessee and the Department was whether there were two transactions regarding disbursement of Rs. 4 lakhs or one transaction. According to the assessee, there was only one transaction of Rs. 4 lakhs while, according to the Department, there were two transactions, one of which was not accounted for in the assessee's books of account. In order to appreciate better the rival stands, it would be necessary to state their respective cases.;