JAIN,J. - (1.) THE CIT has filed this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the issuance of a mandamus to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law, which arise out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 12th Sept., 1976: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs. 28,600 on paddy account is vitiated by ignoring of legal and admissible material and acceptance of irrelevant and inadmissible considerations? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,400 sustained by the AAC in the Bardana account? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the deletion of Rs. 11,450 in the bran account?"
(2.) IT would be unnecessary to rewrite all the facts which have been given in detail in the order of the Tribunal, dt. 31st March, 1976, by which the application filed by the CIT under s. 256(1) was rejected. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that no question of law arises, which may require our decision. The Tribunal is right that the deletion or addition to the paddy account, bardana account and rice bran account, was made on appraisal of the material on the record, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Senior advocate, learned counsel for the revenue, has evidence which was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal or any irrelevant inadmissible evidence on which reliance might have been placed by the Tribunal. On the facts found by the Tribunal on the appraisal of the evidence on the record, the aforesaid questions do not require any decision of this Court.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this petition is dismissed, but without there being any order as to costs.;