Judgment Venkataswami, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, has referred under Sec. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), the following two questions, for the opinion of this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that 150 bags of sugar purchased by Shri B. N. Jain was, in fact, purchased by the assessee and to add Rs. 52,068 as income from other sources ? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal has been vitiated on account of taking irrelevant and inadmissible matters under consideration and ignoring the relevant materials and the findings are perverse ?" 2. The facts leading to the above reference are the following : The petitioner/assessee, a registered firm, was deriving income from grocery business. There was a search of the godown of the assessee by the B. D. O., Dehri-on-Sone, on May 3, 1972. During that search, the B. D. O. found 250 bags of sugar in the godown of the assessee. It was admitted on behalf of the assessee that out of those 250 bags, 100 bags belonged to it and the balance of 150 bags belonged to one B.N. Jain of 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta. On verification through S.I.B., Calcutta, it was found that there was no person like B.N. Jain living at the said address. This fact was informed to the assessee. However, the petitioner/ assessee, by a reply dated July 16, 1975, took a stand reiterating its earlier statement that the said B.N.Jain was living at 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta. During enquiry by the Income-tax Officer, one Bishwanath Prasad Jain appeared before the Income-tax Officer on March 18, 1976, and gave a statement as follows : "I, Bishwanath Prasad Jain, s/o. Late Takhtmal Jain, aged about 28 years resident of Rajasthan and presently residing at 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta, which is rented in the name of Madanlal Agarwal, Advocate. He is my Phuphera brother. I have read up to matric. I have no brothers. I am doing commission business occasionally since few years back. I got delivery of 150 bags of sugar on May 19, 1972, through my man Radha Prasad. I do not maintain any account books. He is my Phuphera brother. I have read up to matric. I have no brothers. I am doing commission business occasionally since few years back. I got delivery of 150 bags of sugar on May 19, 1972, through my man Radha Prasad. I do not maintain any account books. The money was paid by raising funds from some parties at Dehri-on-Sone and about Rs. 15,000 from my pocket. After delivery I sold the stock to local dealers. I do not remember the name of the parties. The stock was first kept with the firm of M/s. Marwary Stores, Dehri, before the stock was finally disposed of. Originally, the stock of sugar (150 bags) was despatched by S.K.G. to one Sri Gobardhandas Sagarmal. I got the information at Hathwa that the consignment of 150 bags had not been lifted by the said party. Hence, on my request, the S.K.G. intimated the S.B.I.D. Nagar to hand over the R.R. to me. (Sd.) Bishwanath Pd. Jain." 3. On the very same date (i.e., March 18, 1976), one Shri Durga Prasad, partner of the assessee-firm also gave a statement before the Income-tax Officer and in his statement he has categorically stated that he was not even distantly related to B.N. Jain who was supposed to have kept 150 bags of sugar in the godown. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer contacted S.K.G. Sugar Mills relating to the sugar bags in question. A letter was issued by the sugar mills on March 1, 1977, stating that B.N. Jain has taken delivery of 150 bags of sugar on April 26, 1973. It was also stated that a sum of Rs. 96,031.40 was paid by B.N. Jain of M/s Shri Ram Kesrimal of Dehri-on-Sone. On these premises, the Income-tax Officer, disbelieving the version put forward on behalf of the assessee that 150 bags of sugar belonged to B.N. Jain, for the reasons stated in the order dated February 1, 1979, found that 150 bags of sugar belonged to the assessee. On that basis, a sum of Rs. 52,058 was included representing the sale value of sugar estimated profit on sale and estimated expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On that basis, a sum of Rs. 52,058 was included representing the sale value of sugar estimated profit on sale and estimated expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellate authority, by order dated April 22, 1980, for the reasons stated in his appellate order, accepted the case of the assessee and consequently deleted the addition of Rs. 52,058. 5. The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, preferred a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after a threadbare analysis of the facts, stated as follows: "... On these facts, the pertinent questions relating to seizure of goods arise which are as hereunder : (1) It has been stated that primarily the goods were sent to Gobardhan Das Sagarmal and when Gobardhan Das Sagarmal failed to retire the hundi, the goods were delivered to Shri B.N. Jain. Shri B.N. Jain as well as the assessee had asserted before the Assessing Officer that Shri Jain was living at 94, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta. Therefore, there is no connection as to how suddenly the goods sent to Gobardhan Das Sagarmal and remained unretired were taken by Shri B.N. Jain at Dehri-on-Sone. (2) The partner of the assessee-firm, Shri Durga Prasad, has asserted that the partners of the firm were not even distantly related with Shri B.N. Jain. Then the question is how Shri B.N. Jain had business relation with the assessee and he kept 150 bags in their godown. (3) It had been stated that Shri B.N. Jain was doing business. No other instance of transaction of business of Shri B.N. Jain had been brought on the record. (4) The certificate from S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. dated March 1, 1977, had been produced in which it has been stated that the payment of Rs. 96,031.40 was received from Shri B.N. Jain of Shree Ram Kesharimal, Dehri-on-Sone. However, he had made the payment according to the letter of S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. at Rs. 96,031.40, but he was not able to indicate the source of his capital or the loan. It is not known as to how he was related with Shree Ram Kesharimal of Dehri. (5) He has stated that the loans were raised from Dehri-on-Sone parties, but he was not able to give the names from whom the loans were raised. 96,031.40, but he was not able to indicate the source of his capital or the loan. It is not known as to how he was related with Shree Ram Kesharimal of Dehri. (5) He has stated that the loans were raised from Dehri-on-Sone parties, but he was not able to give the names from whom the loans were raised. (6) It is quite strange that when the hundi was not retired by Gobardhan Das Sagarmal of Dehri-on-Sone, a strange party of Calcutta retired the hundi and made the payment. It is not believable even if the nature of commercial transaction is kept in mind. Shri B.N. Jain had not given any local address, nor was he doing sugar business at Dehri-on-Sone. (7) The assessee in course of the argument before the Tribunal stated that the goods were kept by it on arhat. The assessee had not indicated that arhat commission had been earned on the goods of Shri B.N. Jain or on any transaction done by him either in the preceding year or subsequent year. (8) Shri B.N. Jain remained unknown so far as the commercial transaction is concerned. He did not give either the names of the parties from whom the loans were taken or the names of the parties to whom the goods were sold. (9) Shri B.N. Jain though stated that he invested Rs. 15,000 out of his own source but he failed to indicate the source. (10) He also failed to indicate whether he had any bank account and if so whether the sum of Rs. 15,000 was paid by him out of his bank account. (11) It was not proved that who on behalf of Shri B.N. fain took delivery of the goods from the Railways. (12) Further, it has been learnt that when the goods were released by the order of the Supreme Court, the security of a truck was furnished which was registered in Bihar." 6. In the light of the above circumstances, the Tribunal held that the 150 bags of sugar in question belonged to the assessee and not to the said B.N. Jain. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the finding of the appellate authority on this issue. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner moved the Tribunal under Sec. 256(1) of the Act for reference to this court, which was turned down by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the finding of the appellate authority on this issue. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner moved the Tribunal under Sec. 256(1) of the Act for reference to this court, which was turned down by the Tribunal. Thereafter, this court, by order dated September 24, 1982, has directed the Tribunal to refer the question set out supra for its opinion. Accordingly, the questions were referred for the opinion of this court. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee elaborately argued the case as if we are sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal. To put it shortly, the sum and substance of the argument of learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee is that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are perverse and not supported by evidence. 9. Bearing in mind the limitation of a reference, the relevant factors that have to be taken into account Will be, whether the Tribunal has taken into account any extraneous matter, or failed to take into account any relevant or material fact which should have been taken into consideration which could vitiate the ultimate finding rendered by it. If the order of the Tribunal is looked at from the above point of view, we cannot say that the Tribunal has failed to take into account any relevant material or has taken into consideration any irrelevant material, for rendering its findings. As pointed out already, the Tribunal has analysed the facts threadbare and every one of the circumstances set out in seriatim is relevant and supports the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. We would also like to point out that the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence normally will not be gone into while sitting in reference jurisdiction. We are satisfied that in this case there is overwhelming evidence to sustain the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. To avoid repetition, we would observe that we accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal as correct for disbelieving the statement of B.N. Jain and consequently the case of the assessee/ petitioner. We are unable to accept the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee that the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and not supported by evidence on record. We are unable to accept the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee that the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and not supported by evidence on record. This is so in the light of the admitted facts that 150 bags of sugar were found in the godown belonging to the assessee and the statement given on behalf of the assessee that those bags belonged to B.N. Jain was not accepted by the Tribunal for well founded reasons with which we are in agreement. The argument sought to be built up on the basis of the statement given by B.N. Jain, said to be supported by the letter written by S.K.G. Sugar Mills cannot be accepted as there was no consistency as pointed out by the Tribunal. 10. No doubt, learned senior counsel for the assessee invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349. In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, on the facts of that case, observed as follows (headnote) : "... From the simple fact that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by X, in whose name the money was lying in deposit, had been found to be false, it would be a remote and far-fetched conclusion to hold that the money belonged to Y. There would be in such a case no direct nexus between the facts found and the conclusion drawn therefrom." 11. From the above, learned senior counsel for the assessee wants to contend that because the explanation of B.N. Jain was not accepted, it cannot automatically be concluded that the 150 sugar bags belonged to the assessee. This argument cannot be accepted as, admittedly, 150 bags of sugar were found in the godown of the assessee and the ownership of those sugar bags was within the exclusive knowledge of the assessee (partners of the firm), and that being, the fact, it cannot be contended that there was no nexus in this case for connecting the ownership of the sugar bags in question with the assessee. We do not, therefore, think that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said judgment can be pressed into service. 12. We do not, therefore, think that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said judgment can be pressed into service. 12. In the result, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative and, consequently, both the questions are answered against the assessee. 13. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar. B.P.Singh, J. 14 I agree.