Question of law must arise from the Tribunal's order; unraised penalty objection was not referable, but false returns issue was.

A question of law cannot be treated as arising from an order if it was not raised before the Tribunal and was not dealt with in that order, even if it appears connected to the facts. On that basis, the objection that the assessing authority could not enhance the penalty was not available for reference. The separate issue concerning the legal sustainability of the finding that false returns had been furnished, and the resulting penalty, was treated as a referable question of law arising from the Board's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question regarding enhancement of penalty had been raised before the Tribunal so as to arise out of its order, and whether the remaining question concerning false returns and penalty was referable as a question of law.

Analysis: A question of law not raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with in its order cannot be treated as arising out of that order, even if it may seem to arise on the facts. The objection that the assessing authority could not enhance the penalty was therefore not available for reference. The remaining issue concerned the legal sustainability of the finding that false returns had been furnished and the resulting penalty, which did arise from the Board's order.

Conclusion: The first question was declined as it had not been raised before the Tribunal. The second question was held to be a referable question of law and was directed to be stated for the opinion of the Court.

---