Factual findings on no concealment and voluntary disclosure do not create a referable question of law under wealth-tax reference rules.

Limitation for a reference application under the Wealth-tax Act ran from service of the order refusing reference, and the application was held to be in time because the relevant order was received by the proper office of the Commissioner on the asserted date with no earlier valid service proved. On the merits of reference, the Tribunal's finding of no concealment and voluntary filing of the revised return rested on factual findings that the property value had been disclosed in the spouse's return and the assessee corrected the position on discovery of the true facts; such findings of fact, including absence of mens rea, did not give rise to a referable question of law. The reference application therefore failed on the concealment issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application for reference under the Wealth-tax Act was within limitation. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment of wealth and that the revised return was voluntary gave rise to any referable question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the application for reference under the Wealth-tax Act was within limitation.

Analysis: The period of limitation ran from service of the order refusing reference. The record showed that the relevant order was received by the proper office of the Commissioner on the date asserted by the applicant, and no earlier service on that office was established.

Conclusion: The application was within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment of wealth and that the revised return was voluntary gave rise to any referable question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on factual findings that the full value of the property had been shown in the spouse's return, that the assessee was not aware of her share initially, and that the revised return was filed voluntarily on discovery of the true position. On such findings, the absence of concealment and the absence of mens rea were matters of fact, and the refusal to make reference was consistent with the principle that a pure finding of fact does not generate a question of law for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed because the impugned conclusion on concealment was factual and not referable, though the application itself was held to be in time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion that there was no concealment is founded on factual findings and voluntary disclosure, no question of law arises for reference under the Wealth-tax Act.

---