Binding precedent on Gift-tax exemption for Hindu undivided families defeats the claim that the issue was debatable.

Binding jurisdictional precedent controlled the Gift-tax Act exemption question for a Hindu undivided family, because the High Court had already held that section 5(1)(viii) was unavailable to such an entity. On that footing, the Tribunal could not treat the issue as debatable merely because other High Courts had taken contrary views, since the local High Court's ruling governed within the State. The matter therefore was not one where two views were equally open, and the refusal to refer the question on the ground of no apparent mistake from the record was incorrect; the reference ought to have been made.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the withdrawal of exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act in the case of a Hindu undivided family did not involve a mistake apparent from the record, so as to justify refusal to refer the question of law.

Analysis: The Court noted that its earlier decision had already held that the exemption under section 5(1)(viii) was not available to a Hindu undivided family because such an entity could not have a spouse. That decision was binding on the Tribunal within the State. In such circumstances, the existence of some contrary views from other High Courts did not make the point debatable for the purpose of rectification or reference. The Court agreed that the opinion of the jurisdictional High Court governed the matter and that the Tribunal could not treat the issue as one on which two views were equally open.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not right in declining to refer the question on the ground that no mistake apparent from the record existed; the issue stood covered by binding precedent, and the reference ought to have been made.

---