- (1.) On three reference applications, the Tribunal has referred the tallowing questions in Reference No. 119 of 1992, Reference No. 121 of 1992 and Matter No. 2324 of 1992, for the opinion of this court : "1. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the materials available on record, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,01,250 in computing taxable income of the assessee ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that there was no material in support of the assessee's claim of having advanced monies to Pushpak Commercial Co. Ltd., towards booking of office flat for commercial purposes is against the evidence on record and/or otherwise unreasonable and perverse ?"
(2.) (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of Rs..94,506 representing payment made by the assessee-firm to Dharam Roadways ? (d) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that genuineness of payment of Rs. 94,026 made by the assessee-firm to Dharam Roadways has not been established and/or the exceptional or unavoidable circumstances leading to cash payments have not been established is based on no evidence and/or is otherwise unreasonable and perverse ? (e) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the evidence in the form of affidavit jointly sworn by Sri Prakash Singh and Sri Bedi Singh of Dharam Roadways, Jamshedpur, in regard to the payment of Rs. 94,026 received by them in cash from the assessee-firm ?
(3.) (f) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance including claim for weighted deduction in respect of foreign travel expenses of Rs. 1,08,381 incurred under blanket permits for export promotion issued by the Reserve Bank of India and claimed as deductible under Section 37 read with Section 35B and Rule 6D(l)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? (g) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that no attempt was made by the assessee to establish that the foreign tours were undertaken for business purposes including export promotion is based on no evidence and/or otherwise unreasonable and perverse ?" 2. The assessee firm carries on business of manufacturing, trading and export of C.I. casting goods made of cast iron as in the preceding year. The materials used in the business are pig iron. Inter alia, the assessee claimed deduction of payment of Rs. 1,49,902 on transport. During the scrutiny, the Income-tax Officer found that out of that expenditure, the assessee has paid Rs. 95,000 and the payments were in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500 on different dates. Therefore, that is hit by the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The case of the assessee was that this cash has been collected by Shri P. K. Sureka from the assessee in Calcutta and it was for the payment to drivers. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim as the payment was in cash which is hit by the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act read with Rule 6DD. 3. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has admitted the additional evidence in the form of affidavit of Prakash Singh, and Bedi Singh, who are the transporters and transport agents. ;