ORDER A.R. TIWARI, J. The Commissioner, Bhopal, submitted applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking direction to the Tribunal, Indore, to state the case and refer the common questions as extracted below, in these cases as particularised above : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in holding that no order under section 25A of 1922 Act or under section 171 of 1961 Act is necessary ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in holding that the consolidated list of all assets in, the name of various members of the family, found in the locker, at the time of search has no probative value for establishing the fact that income of the individual members of the HUF was that of HUF ? 2. The assessee in all these cases is common but the assessment years are from 1979-80 to 1983-84. - 3. Today Misc. Civil Case No. 231 of 1993 was listed before us. The counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that identical Misc. Civil Cases, as particularised above, were also pending. Accordingly on his request, these cases were also ordered to be listed today through supplementary cause list for analogous hearing as connected matters. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee deals in coal ash. His premises were searched on 21st Jan., 1986. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found. After examining those documents, the assessing officer concluded that all the assets, as stated in the documents, belonged to the bigger HUF and there was no partition of such HUF as claimed at the time of filing the return under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1965. He, therefore, clubbed incomes of all the individual members/branches of smaller HUFs completed the assessments accordingly. In appeals by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Indore for the aforesaid assessment years took the view that it was not open to question the partial partition of the HUF claimed to have been done in 1957 and accepted by the department as fact and thus allowed the appeals. The department then filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in all the cases of the aforesaid years took the view in favour of the assessee and against the department and thus dismissed the appeals. The department then filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in all the cases of the aforesaid years took the view in favour of the assessee and against the department and thus dismissed the appeals. The department then submitted applications under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act which were rejected. Dissatisfied, the department took recourse under section 256(2) of the IT Ad. 5. We have heard Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant/department and Shri B.K Joshi, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee in all these cases 6. The Tribunal declined to state the case and refer the questions on conclusion that the order of the Tribunal was based on its earlier order and no referable questions of law existed. 7. The counsel for the applicant very frankly submitted that similar questions were raised in CIT v. Dwarkadas Ghashiram (Misc. Civil Case No. 349 of 1993) under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act as also in connected Misc. Civil Case Nos. 346 of 1993, 347 of 1993 and 348 of 1993 but these Misc. Civil Cases were dismissed by this Court on the ground that there was no referable question of law. 8. It is noticed that assessing officer reopened the assessments for the aforesaid assessment years under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. Commissioner (Aappeals), however, cancelled the assessments and allowed the appeals. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals. It is seen that the partial partition was evidenced by deed dated 9-4-1957 and was not only acted upon but was accepted by the department for a considerable period of time. The assessee made voluntary disclosures which were accepted by the Commissioner and the partition was found to be genuine. The assessments were framed accordingly. The assessments are, thus based on appreciation of facts. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 1976 CTR (SC) 238 : (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC) and in CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC) it is held that conclusion based on question of fact does not give rise to any question of law. 9. As the questions contained in these Misc. Civil Cases are already held in the aforesaid decided Misc. Civil Cases as questions of fact and not of law and nothing new is pointed out before us in these cases, we are not disposed to take a different view in the matter. 9. As the questions contained in these Misc. Civil Cases are already held in the aforesaid decided Misc. Civil Cases as questions of fact and not of law and nothing new is pointed out before us in these cases, we are not disposed to take a different view in the matter. We are satisfied that the questions are based on appreciation of facts and do not give rise to any referable questions of law. 10. Accordingly we dismiss all these Misc. Civil Cases but with no order as to costs. 11. Counsel fee is, however, fixed at Rs, 750.00 for each side in each case, if certified. 12. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 231 of 1993 and place its copy each in the connected Misc. Civil Cases for ready reference.