Reference jurisdiction over unraised questions is limited to issues actually raised before or considered by the Tribunal.

A question of law may be referred only if it arose out of the Tribunal's order, meaning it was raised before the Tribunal or actually considered by it; a point not argued or dealt with cannot validly be referred even if it can be traced to the findings. On that principle, the effect of the Commissioner's revisional order could not be referred because it was never brought before the Tribunal. The tapioca-income contention also did not justify a further reference, since the record showed that the assessee had consistently maintained that the crop matured later and yielded no income in the relevant year. The reference was therefore incompetent, and no additional question was required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the question relating to the effect of the Commissioner's revisional order could be referred under section 60(1) when it had neither been raised nor considered before the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the assessee had raised the tapioca-income contention for the first time in second appeal so as to justify refusal to refer the additional question.

Issue (i): The statutory reference jurisdiction under section 60(1) extends only to questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order, on the same principle as section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A question that was neither raised before the Tribunal nor dealt with by it does not arise out of its order, even if it may emerge from the findings. Since the revisional order of the Commissioner was never brought to the Tribunal's notice and the point was not argued there, the proposed question could not validly be referred.

Conclusion: The reference on this issue was incompetent and could not be entertained.

Issue (ii): The record showed that the assessee's case throughout was that the tapioca variety cultivated by him took a longer time to mature and that no income was received during the relevant accounting year. The contention was thus not a new plea introduced for the first time in second appeal. The framed question proceeded on an incorrect premise and did not warrant reference.

Conclusion: No separate question was required to be referred on this point.

Final Conclusion: The reference was not maintainable and the connected petition seeking further reference also failed, leaving the assessee successful on the jurisdictional issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A question of law can be referred only if it was raised before the Tribunal or actually considered by it; a point neither raised nor dealt with cannot be treated as arising out of the Tribunal's order.

---