Advisory income-tax reference cannot answer an academic question that does not arise from the assessee's actual title to property.

A reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 should not be answered where the referred question is merely academic or hypothetical and does not arise on the true legal basis of the assessee's title to the property. The Court's advisory jurisdiction is confined to the actual question emerging from the facts found, and it should not pronounce on an incomplete issue that does not affect the assessee's real tax liability. On the facts, the estate was held under a later settlement, not the earlier kaoolnama relied on, so the reference was rightly refused and the High Court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, should be answered where the question referred is merely academic and does not arise on the true basis of the assessee's title to the estate.

Analysis: The appellant's contention depended on the kaoolnama of 22 November 1803, but the materials showed that the estate was ultimately held under a subsequent settlement and not under that kaoolnama. The question referred therefore did not determine the appellant's actual liability to income-tax on the relevant income and had only academic interest. In a reference under section 66, the function of the Court is advisory and confined to answering the actual question arising on the facts; it should not be asked to pronounce on a purely hypothetical or incomplete issue.

Conclusion: The reference question ought not to have been answered, and the High Court's order was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: An income-tax reference will not be answered when, on the facts found, the issue is merely academic and does not arise from the actual settlement under which the assessee holds the property.

Ratio Decidendi: A Court exercising advisory reference jurisdiction under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 should refuse to answer a question that is purely academic or hypothetical and does not arise from the actual legal basis of the assessee's liability.

---