Veeraswami J - We are in this Reference concerned with the assessment years; 1945-46 and 1946-47 for which the relevant accounting years ended respectively on July 3, 1944 and July 2, 1945. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family deriving, income from securities, properties, a cloth business and money-lending business. The bulk of its income came from cloth business. For the assessment years the taxable income was determined at Rs. 15,026 and Rs. 32,345. On November 14, 1951 the departmental staff made a surprise visit to the assessee’s premises and dis-covered a pattial book in English pattilal which the assessee had maintained for the period December, 1942 to 1948. This English pattial tallied with a Tamil pattial, which also the assessee had maintained, in almost all particulars except the rate at which the textile goods were sold to purchasers from Ceylon. the difference between the Tamil and the English pattials came to Rs. 50,327 for 1945-46 and Rs. 36,818-12-0 for the subsequent years. The assessment were, therefore re-opened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, with the result the the chargeable, income was re-fixed at Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 1,19,673 for the respective years. The explanation offered by the assessee in relation to the English pattial was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the assessee succeeded partly in respect of the assessment year 1946-47 but so far as the addition referable to the difference arising from the English pattial was concerned, the assessments were confirmed. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Revenue took the correct view in adding to the original assessments. At the instance of the assessee a Reference was made to us under section 66 (2) of the Act on the following question:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 50,327 and Rs. 36,819 respectively in the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47 as concealed profits made out of the exports of textiles to Ceylon?” Prima facie the finding of Revenue as well as the Tribunal as to that matter is a factual one. But even a finding of fact is open to review on certain limited legal grounds. 50,327 and Rs. 36,819 respectively in the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47 as concealed profits made out of the exports of textiles to Ceylon?” Prima facie the finding of Revenue as well as the Tribunal as to that matter is a factual one. But even a finding of fact is open to review on certain limited legal grounds. If the inference drawn from proved facts appears unreasonable or a factual finding arrived at is impossible of acceptance to a mind trained in the law in all the circumstances or if the finding is not supported by any material or in the process of arriving at it, there is a misdirection in regard to admissibility of evidence, the Court, acting under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, may well be justified in reviewing the factual finding. We have, therefore, listened to a somewhat lengthy argument from Mr. Swaminathan for the assessee. But we are not persuaded that there is any of these grounds present to justify this Court to come to a different conclusion. At the original assessment, the assessee did not disclose the English pattials but there were bills drawn up in English corresponding to Tamil bills. The explanation in regard to the English bills offered by the assessee originally was that they were meant for facilitating check by Customs Authorities across the Indian frontier. When confronted with the English pattial book, a different explanation was given by the assessee, namely, that it was maintained at the instance of the Ceylon customers. The Revenue as well as the Tribunal, in view of the materials and surrounding circumstances, were convinced that the assessee’s explanation was unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal pointed out that the assessee had been shifting its ground every time and was not speaking the truth. We have ourselves been taken through the relevant record in relation to that matter and we are not satisfied that the Tribunal in expressing that view was in error. The considerations before the Tribunal fell under three categories: (1) For transactions amounting to Rs. 10,748 for the assessment year 1944-45 and Rs. 3,250 for the assessment year 1945-46, there was no evidence at all to corroborate the assessee’s version; (2) transactions amounting to Rs. 20,349 and Rs. The considerations before the Tribunal fell under three categories: (1) For transactions amounting to Rs. 10,748 for the assessment year 1944-45 and Rs. 3,250 for the assessment year 1945-46, there was no evidence at all to corroborate the assessee’s version; (2) transactions amounting to Rs. 20,349 and Rs. 9,042 for the two assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47 respectively for which affidavits were filed from Ceylon merchants; and (3) in respect of transactions amounting to Rs. 19,295 and Rs. 24,525 account copies from Ceylon parties duly certified by the assessee’s accountant were filed. These materials were examined by the Tribunal in the light of the sworn statement of the assessee, dated February 7, 1955, that it had no evidence in support of its version that the English pattial was prepared just to oblige the out-of-State purchasers from Ceylon. The affidavits before the Tribunal were disbelieved by it on the ground that they related to facts which took place more than a decade before and they could not be acted upon unless they were based upon books of account. The Tribunal considered that the affidavits were based upon memory and admittedly not on the books of account. Some of the affidavits stated that the deponents thereto did not possess old books of account, that the books of account had been misplaced and that they were not available with them at the time of preparing the affidavits. It is not possible to say that in rejecting the affidavits for those reasons, the Tribunal acted unreasonably. The Tribunal was not also prepared to act upon the certified copies of accounts, and very properly. The outstanding fact which emerges from the records of the case is that the assessee was in receipt of excess amounts over the value of goods supplied by him and such excess invariably was shown as having been repaid in cash in Salem to the said purchasers or their agents. The assessee, as was pointed out by the Tribunal, had no explanation as to why such excesses were received and as to why they were shown as invariably repaid in cash. One can understand if there were only a few instances of excess and refund in cash. The assessee, as was pointed out by the Tribunal, had no explanation as to why such excesses were received and as to why they were shown as invariably repaid in cash. One can understand if there were only a few instances of excess and refund in cash. But when practically all the transactions were of that character, we consider that the Tribunal was entitled to take the view that in the absence of proper acceptable explanation, the excess over the value of the goods ascertained on a comparative reference to the Tamil and English pattials represented undisclosed profits. The English pattial certainly furnished material on which the finding could be supported and on such evidence, the Tribunal as well as the Revenue were justified, in our view, in finding that the excess, as it was, was undisclosed profit. Mr. Swaminathan contended; that the affidavits could not be disbelieved unless the deponents were examined. In support he relied on K.A. Subramaniam v. Controller of Estate Duty. 1He also added that when copies of account were certified by a Notary Public, which is the usual way recognised by Courts in producing evidence of that type, particularly when the accounts related to foreign clients, they should be acted upon. In this connection he referred us to Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax2and Haja Allauddin v. Commissioner of Income-tax 3. But none of these decisions has laid down as a general proposition that irrespective of circumstances, affidavits and accounts should, as a rule, be relied upon as representing the truth. Whether such evidence can be relied upon or not depends on appreciation of particular circumstances, the parties who produced it and the value to be given to such evidence. We answer the Reference against the assessee with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs. 250. V.S. ----- Answered accordingly.