A. Raghuvir, C, J.:- This Reference is made at the instance of a partnership firm run in the name and style of M/s. Saligram & Co. at Dibrugarh. The subject matter of the reference is two storied house at Mancotta Road of Dibrugarh town pur­chased by the firm in 1968, for business purposes. The house property of the firm is in two floors and measures in each floor 3388 sq. ft. The first floor is occupied by two partners of the firm for residential purposes. The second floor is let out to two sister concerns, Saligram Prermukh & Co. and Saligram & Co. (P) Ltd. who pay the rent of Rs.6,000/-. 2. The Income Tax Officer in the assessment order for 1973 -74 added Rs. 12,000/- rent as regards the first floor and Rs. 6,000- for the second floor as income of the firm. The firm disputed the amount of Rs. 12,000/- but did not dispute the rent of Rs. 6,000/-. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner on appeal confirmed the order. On further appeal, the Tribunal remitted the subject matter for recomputation of rent of the first floor. This order of the Tribunal we will refer as the first order of the Tribunal. After remand the Income Tax Officer added Rs. 18,000/- as rent derivable from the first floor. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner barring minor details as to de­duction of municipal taxes and land revenue confirmed the order. On further appeal the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. This order we call it as second order of the Tribunal. 3. At the instance of the assessee the following question -is referred under Clause (1) of Section 256 of the Act ; "Whe­ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the occupation of of a part of the building, which was owned by the firm and otherwise exclusively meant for business purposes and notional income therefrom was assessable as income from house property u/s. 23 of the I. T. Act, 1961" The answer to the question referred is to be found in Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, which reards as under ; "22. Income from house property- The annual value of property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Income from house property'." The house referred in the Section if it is not occupied for business or professional purpose the income referable to such occupation is to be treated income from the house property. That is the meaning of Section 22. In the instant case the two tenants of the firm paid Rs.6,000/-as rent and that amount was added without any demur as the income from house property. The assessee disputed Rs.18,000/-the annual letting value of the first floor as it was occupied by two partners for business purposes. This issue was answered against the firm by the revenue authorities. The correctness of that decision is assailed by the instant question by the assessee. 4. There was a controversy before the Tribunal while the second order was being passed : Whether the issue was decided in the first order of the Tribunal. The revenue contended it is decided in the first order of the Tribunal. The assessee contended to the contrary. In the second order the Tribunal held such a decision was "impliedly" reached in the first order and later in the same order differently. There is for a while a like controversy is raised in this court. The two orders of the Tribunal do raise an unseemly situation and leave much to be desired. 5. Whenever controversies of such a nature are raised what is the practice to be followed is indicated in 82 ITR 547, Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. C. I. T. The Supreme Court held in the event of a controversy on facts the statement in the case is to be accepted as correct. In that case it was held neither the High Courts nor the Supreme Court can question the correctness of the state­ments of fact. In the instant case it is held the Tribunal in their first order did not decide the issue. The controversy ends with that statement. 6 There is yet another unseemly controversy in the case. In that case it was held neither the High Courts nor the Supreme Court can question the correctness of the state­ments of fact. In the instant case it is held the Tribunal in their first order did not decide the issue. The controversy ends with that statement. 6 There is yet another unseemly controversy in the case. The Revenue argued as a question of fact in the second order the first floor was not used for business purposes and relied on the following passage : "Firstly, the Tribunal already considered this matter and has given directions in such manner so as to lead to the conclusion that it had for all practical purposes decided that the annual letting value of the portion occupied by the partners should be assessed as income from property. Secondly, this, in our opinion, is also the correct position of law. The living of partners is always necessary for their efficient running of business and for that they require decent residence. "The assessee points the emphasised portion of the above passage and argued the first floor was occupied for business purposes. The attempt by the revenue is to show that as a fact it was held the house -property was not occupied for business purposes therefore there is no error in the ascertainment of the sum of Rs. 18,000/-as rent for the first floor. The learned counsel for the assessee argued the Tribunal erred in ascertaining the rent after it is held the first floor was occupied by the partners for attending the "business of the firm. 7. The Tribunal we hold in the instant case inferred on the facts that first floor of the building was not used for busi­ness purposes. The correctness of the inference at the instance of the firm is referred to this court. We may here recount that all inferences drawn from facts do not always raise questions of law. See 45 I. A. 183 (Nafar vs. Shankar). But inferences are drawn from mixed questions of fact and law invariably do raise questions of law : (1916) 1 AC 405 (Herbert vs. Samuel Tax & Co.). The instant case is of the latter type. 8. The instant house property is a business house as it was purchased for business in 1968. The house therefore was not in­tended for residential purposes. The instant case is of the latter type. 8. The instant house property is a business house as it was purchased for business in 1968. The house therefore was not in­tended for residential purposes. The two partners to repeat are in occupation of the first floor. These are basic facts in the case. Whether residence of two partners in the first floor is to be inferred for business purposes is the issue. The Tribunal inferred the occupation of two partners of the first floor is not for business purposes. The inference drawn is assailed in the instant question. In all like situatibns one aspect should always be borne in mind. It is the Tribunal that is charged with the duty to decide whether the inference drawn is a question of fact or a question of law. Once the Tiibunal refers the ques­tion it is accepted a question of law is referred : AIR 1957 SC 49 at page 62 (Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai vs. I. T. Commr). Thus there is a built in presumption in the reference when made by the Tribunal. 9. In this case large number of authorities were cited by the revenue and the assessee. In 59 ITR 152, CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., the Punjab High Court held on facts the house property was occupied for the business of the assessee. In 114 ITR 397 CIT vs. Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd. the Madhya Pradesh High Court held tenameats were occu­pied for business purposes. In 119 ITR 303, C. I. T. vs. Rasiklal Balabhai, the Gujarat High Court held a godown was occupied for business purposes. The Delhi High Court in 141 ITR 806, D.L.F. Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. held at page 809 the house was occupied for business purposes was not proved. Instances thus can be multiplied. 10. We see from the facts of the case the Income Tax Officer found the business of the firm was to deal in Motor Vehicles, in Ambassador Cars, Bedford Trucks, Tractors, Motor Cycles, Scooters, Refrigerators, Motor Parts and also to run a motor repairing garage in the premise of the house property. The counsel for the assessee on the same faith argued the assessee dealt in motor parts and motor repairs work associated with the garage including washing and overhauling of motor vehicles. The counsel for the assessee on the same faith argued the assessee dealt in motor parts and motor repairs work associated with the garage including washing and overhauling of motor vehicles. Such a business required the attention of the firm round the clock therefore the two partners occupied the first floor to attend to the work of the assessee. 11. Whether the two partners to attend the work or one is enough to attend such a work and whether the first floor is to be occupied by them for attending the work it is for the proprietor of the firm to decide. As a fact it is not denied the two partners were attending to the work indicated earlier. As we have indicated in the prefatory part of the order the issue raised is founded on fact and law and in our con­sideration on the facts it is more probable to infer the house property was occupied by the partners for business purposes. 12. In that view the question referred is answered in the negative in favour of the asssssee and against the Revenue. No costs.