SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE following question of law has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") :"whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of shares of Ganesh Sugar Mills Ltd. , Samala Collieries Ltd. and Shri Anand Sugar Mills Ltd. , was in the nature of business deals ?" ( 2 ) THIS case has a little history. The relevant assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1956-57 and the corresponding previous year is the calendar year 1955. The case had come up for hearing to this court on an earlier occasion and by an order dated July 29, 1980, the Tribunal was directed to file a supplementary statement of case. The direction was as under :"we, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to consider these two aspects, namely, with what intention the shares had been acquired and with what intention the shares in question were sold to another member of the Jai-puria Group along with the facts as to how these shares were held by the assessee-company. The Tribunal will give such opportunities to the parties as the Tribunal considers fit and proper to adduce evidence on these points and make a supplementary statement of the case after considering the aforesaid aspects within six months from service of this order on the Tribunal. " ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has filed a supplementary statement of case in which arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue as well as on behalf of the assessee have been recorded but the Tribunal stated that:"the certified order of the Hon'ble High Court was submitted before the Tribunal by the assessee's counsel on August 11, 1987. The case was fixed for hearing several times thereafter. Both the parties were not in a position to adduce the relevant facts on the basis of which the statement could be drawn. " ( 4 ) THEREFORE, the Tribunal was unable to come to a finding on the intention with which the shares had been acquired and sold because none of the parties had adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal could not come to any finding, as required by this court. " ( 4 ) THEREFORE, the Tribunal was unable to come to a finding on the intention with which the shares had been acquired and sold because none of the parties had adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal could not come to any finding, as required by this court. ( 5 ) SINCE the case relates to the accounting year 1955 and the reference is pending from the year 1971, we think that the case should be disposed of as best as possible on the basis of materials on record. ( 6 ) IT appears from the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that he had come to the conclusion"that the profit-motive is clearly patent in these transactions. Under these circumstances, I hold that the profit on the sale of the shares cannot be treated as capital profit and is rightly included in the total income as revenue profit on the sale of the shares. " ( 7 ) THIS finding of fact was not specifically challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was not called upon set aside the said finding. The Tribunal has come to its finding after taking into consideration the relevant facts that were before it. In particular, the Tribunal has considered the shortness of time during which the shares were held. The finding is not based on any irrelevant materials. The Tribunal has considered all the facts brought before it. The finding on the profit-making motive made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not under challenge before it. There might be other facts which might have induced the Tribunal to come to a different conclusion but those facts were not placed before the Tribunal. On the facts of the case, no question of perversity about the finding of the Tribunal has been raised. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. ( 9 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.