Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. In these tax case petitions, the Department requested to direct the Tribunal to refer the following common questions of law said to arise out of the common order of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 11(4) are not applicable to the facts of this case? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) towards excessive wastage in newsprint? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the additions sustained by the CIT(A) towards sale of waste? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the trade discount in toto as claimed by the assessee? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the additions made by the ITO towards unexplained cash credits as income from 'other sources'?" 2. The assessee is a trust deriving income from the running of a newspaper called Dina Thanthi. As a result of the search in the premises of the assessee, the ITO was of the view that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, he issued notice under s. 148 of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee filed a return for the asst. yr. 1975-76 showing loss and claimed that if any positive income is assessed it would be exempted under s. 11 of the Act and for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the assessee claimed that the chargeable income was "nil". The ITO denied the exemption under s. 11 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had violated the provisions of s. 13(1)(c) of the Act by allowing the trust to have the benefit of the funds of the assessee, since the assessee had allowed its godown to be used for keeping stocks of Rani Publications which was the proprietary concern of the trustee. The ITO also invoked the provisions of s. 11(4) of the Act and held that the excess income determined by him was deemed to be applied for purposes other than charitable or religious in nature. On appeal, in so far as the application of s. 11(4) of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) agreed with the ITO. But, in respect of certain quantum of additions, the CIT(A) thought it fit to remit back the issue to the ITO for verification. However, on further appeal, the Tribunal considered that the additions made in respect of the excessive waste, sale of waste, trade discount and cash credit are not sustainable. This conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal on an appraisal of facts arising in respect of the above said four items. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that s. 11(4) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case and the additions made in respect of the above said four items were deleted. 3. It remains to be seen that the provisions of s. 11(4) of the Act would be applicable only if the assessed income is more than the returned income. In the present case such a difference was shown by the authorities below since the additions were made in respect of the abovesaid four items. If the income arising out of those four items were not included. then there would be no excessive income than what was returned by the assessee in the returns. 4. In so far as those four items are concerned, the assessee furnished the particulars in order to show as to why the income arising out of those four items should not be included in the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee furnished the particulars, with regard to the aforesaid four items, the CIT(A) thought it fit to remit back the same for verification to the ITO. On appeal, the Tribunal, considering the facts gathered by the CIT(A) and the ITO, thought it fit to delete the additions made in respect of the above said four items. If the additions made in the abovesaid four items were deleted, then there would be no difference between the income returned by the assessee and the income assessed by the ITO. In such a case, s. 11(4) of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case. If the additions made in the abovesaid four items were deleted, then there would be no difference between the income returned by the assessee and the income assessed by the ITO. In such a case, s. 11(4) of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case. Learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that in respect of certain items of additions, the assessee furnished the particulars only before the CIT(A) and hence, the CIT(A), remitted back these matters for verification to the ITO. According to learned standing counsel, the Tribunal without verifying the facts furnished by the assessee before the CIT(A) deleted the additions made in respect of the above said four items. Therefore, according to learned standing counsel, the order of the Tribunal in deleting the additions on the merits is not sustainable. But the fact remains that the Tribunal is the highest fact-finding authority. The Tribunal, after considering the facts gathered by the ITO and the CIT(A), legitimately thought it fit that no further verification is necessary in the matter for deciding the issues arising on the abovesaid four items. Thus, considering the facts, the Tribunal held that the additions made under the abovesaid four items are unsustainable. Since this conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal on an appraisal of facts arising in this case, we consider that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as framed and suggested by the Department, as questions Nos. 2 to 5. As already pointed out when there is no excessive assessed income over and above the income returned by the assessee, the provisions of s. 11(4) of the Act cannot be applied. Accordingly, we consider the question of law as framed and suggested by the Department as question No. 1 also does not arise out of the order of the trial.In the result, the tax case petitions are dismissed. No costs.