Reassessment jurisdiction under income-tax law can raise a referable question of law when reopening power is in dispute.

A challenge to reassessment proceedings raised a referable question of law because it concerned not only the absence of information under section 147(b) but also the broader legal ambit of the Income-tax Officer's power to reopen the assessment and pass a fresh reassessment order on the materials invoked. The Tribunal had treated the matter as one of fact and refused reference, but the HC held that the issue went to jurisdiction and statutory scope, not merely factual determination. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in saying that no question of law arose, and the Revenue's reference application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a question of law arose for reference under section 256(2) on the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and complete reassessment in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the absence of information under section 147(b) as a finding of fact and declined reference. The Court held that the challenge also raised a broader legal question concerning the scope of the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and to pass a fresh reassessment order on the basis of the materials and the connected statutory grounds invoked. Since the issue involved the legal ambit of reassessment powers and not merely a factual determination, it gave rise to a referable question of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in holding that no question of law arose, and the Revenue's application for reference was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy concerns the legal scope of the authority to reopen and reassess under the income-tax law, the issue is not confined to fact and can constitute a referable question of law under section 256(2).

---