Statutory reference jurisdiction is limited to questions of law raised in the original application, not later additions.

In a statutory reference under section 66(2), only the question of law specifically raised in the original application can be required to be referred. A party cannot enlarge the scope of the reference by introducing a new question later, even if it is framed as arising from the same order or an assumed succession issue. The reference jurisdiction is confined to questions properly included in the application, and a subsequently added issue is treated as outside that jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a reference application under section 66(2), a party can seek a reference on a question of law that was not mentioned in the application and was raised only later.

Issue (i): Whether, in a reference application under section 66(2), a party can seek a reference on a question of law that was not mentioned in the application and was raised only later.

Analysis: The application under section 66(2) was the foundation of the proceeding, and only the questions stated in that application could be required to be referred. A new question introduced later, though framed as arising on an assumed succession, had not been included in the original application. Since the statutory right to require a reference extends only to a question of law arising out of the order and properly raised in the application, the later question could not be entertained as an afterthought.

Conclusion: The additional question was not referable under section 66(2) and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rule failed because the assessee could not enlarge the reference beyond the questions originally raised in the statutory application, and the proceeding was discharged with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory reference proceeding, only a question of law specifically raised in the application can be required to be referred; a subsequently introduced question is outside the reference jurisdiction.

---