Reference jurisdiction requires a real question of law; factual expenditure findings and unformulated issues were not referable.

Reference proceedings under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act do not arise where the Tribunal has applied settled precedent to routine expenditure or where the disputed items turn on factual findings. Allowance of advertisement, souvenir and new year compliment expenses was treated as governed by existing law; no fresh question of law arose. Findings on loss from revaluation of loose tools and on stamp and stamp paper expenditure were factual and disclosed no legal issue. Interplanting cardamom was held to be revenue expenditure because it was merely replacement planting to maintain the estate, not capital outlay under Explanation 2 to section 5. A question not formulated before the Tribunal was also held not referable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's allowance of expenditure on advertisement in magazines and souvenirs and on new year compliments gave rise to a referable question of law; (ii) whether the Tribunal's findings on loss on revaluation of loose tools and on expenditure on stamp and stamp paper disclosed any question of law; (iii) whether the expenditure on interplanting cardamom was capital expenditure under Explanation 2 to section 5 of the Act or only revenue expenditure; (iv) whether question No. 6 could be referred when it had not been formulated before the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's allowance of expenditure on advertisement in magazines and souvenirs and on new year compliments gave rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: Section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was treated as pari materia with the corresponding expenditure provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act. The allowance of these items was supported by settled precedent, and the Tribunal had merely applied the governing legal position to the facts. The questions were therefore largely academic and did not present a fresh issue of law requiring reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on these two items, and the Tribunal's view stood.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's findings on loss on revaluation of loose tools and on expenditure on stamp and stamp paper disclosed any question of law.

Analysis: The loss on revaluation of loose tools was found to be a periodical write-off arising from an accountancy method and not an item of actual expenditure, so the determination turned on facts. The stamp and stamp paper expenditure was held to be small in amount and, on the facts, a routine revenue item rather than a capital outlay. Both determinations depended on the factual matrix and the nature of the items concerned.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from either finding.

Issue (iii): Whether the expenditure on interplanting cardamom was capital expenditure under Explanation 2 to section 5 of the Act or only revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that only replacement planting was done to fill vacancies caused by dried-up and decayed plants, that no new plantation was undertaken, and that the work was routine maintenance to keep the estate uniformly planted. On those findings, the expenditure was not of the kind contemplated by Explanation 2 to section 5 as capital expenditure.

Conclusion: The expenditure was revenue in nature and no referable question of law arose.

Issue (iv): Whether question No. 6 could be referred when it had not been formulated before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The record showed that question No. 6 had never formed part of the application before the Tribunal and had not been formulated for reference. A question not so raised could not be carried forward for decision by the Court in reference jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Question No. 6 was not referable.

Final Conclusion: The Court found that none of the proposed questions warranted reference, either because they were concluded by settled authority or because they depended on facts alone, and one question was never properly raised before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: In reference proceedings, no question of law arises where the Tribunal's conclusions rest on factual findings or on settled precedent, and a question not formulated before the Tribunal cannot be referred.

---