Binding precedent barred reference under section 256(2), as no surviving question of law remained despite a pending special leave petition.

An application under section 256(2) failed because the proposed question had already been answered against the Revenue by binding precedent, leaving no referable question of law. The mere pendency of a special leave petition against that precedent did not diminish its binding effect or create a fresh issue for reference. The Tribunal was therefore justified in refusing to refer the question, and the request for reference was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be allowed for reference of a question already concluded by binding precedent, and whether pendency of a special leave petition against that precedent altered the position.

Analysis: The question proposed by the Revenue had already been answered by the Court against it in earlier binding authority, and therefore no referable question of law survived. Mere pendency of a special leave petition did not efface the binding force of that or create a fresh question warranting a reference. The Tribunal's refusal to refer the question was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The applications failed as no question of law was found to exist for reference, and the request under section 256(2) was rejected.

---