Question of law and reference jurisdiction: court refused to recast the proposed question where no independent Revenue prejudice issue was framed.

The Court declined to recast the proposed reference or direct a reference on alleged prejudice to the Revenue because the Revenue had not framed any question challenging the assessment order on that independent footing. The proposed questions were confined to the validity of the partnership and the character of the income, and those issues had already been declined in a connected matter. In the absence of a properly proposed question of law, no question of law arose for consideration, and the request to reword the question was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court could reframe the proposed question so as to secure a reference on the alleged prejudice to the Revenue, and whether any question of law arose for consideration.

Analysis: The questions proposed were confined to the validity of the partnership and the character of the income, and had already been declined in a connected matter. The Revenue had not framed any question assailing the assessment order on the independent footing that, even assuming the firm to be genuine, the order was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the absence of such a proposed question, the Court declined to recast the reference or direct a reference on an issue not sought.

Conclusion: No question of law arose, and the request to reword the question and obtain a reference was rejected.

---