Distinguishing precedent on family-partition property justified a reference on the wealth-tax question of law.

A question of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act could not be refused for reference merely because the Tribunal considered it covered by precedent. The Court found the earlier Supreme Court ruling distinguishable because the present asset was acquired on partition of the family, whereas the precedent concerned self-acquired property. That material factual difference meant the issue was not squarely covered and was not merely academic, so the Tribunal's refusal to state the case was unjustified and it was directed to refer the question.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in declining to refer the proposed question of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on the ground that it was already covered by precedent and would be merely of academic interest.

Analysis: The Tribunal had accepted that the proposed question was a question of law, but refused reference by treating it as covered by the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the Revenue. The Court held that the factual basis in the present case was materially different, since the asset in question was acquired on partition of the family, whereas the earlier decision concerned self-acquired property. On that distinction, the issue could not be said to be squarely covered by the precedent and therefore warranted reference.

Conclusion: The refusal to state the case was unjustified, and the Tribunal was directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question to the Court.

---