Referable question of law: factual findings and a disclosure-scheme circular prevented reference on affidavits and cross-examination.

No referable question of law arose on the admission of affidavits and alleged denial of cross-examination under rule 46A because the Tribunal found, as a fact, that the Income-tax Officer had an opportunity to comment on the affidavits and no request was made to examine the deponents. No referable question of law arose on the voluntary disclosure scheme issue either, because the Board's clarification extended immunity not only to the declarant but also to other persons, including the guardian of minors. On both points, the proposed reference failed since the controversy did not disclose a question of law requiring a statement of the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether any referable question of law arose from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's admission of affidavits and the alleged denial of cross-examination under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; (ii) whether the immunity under the voluntary disclosure scheme extended to the assessee, being the father of the minor declarants, so as to give rise to a referable question of law.

Issue (i): Whether any referable question of law arose from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's admission of affidavits and the alleged denial of cross-examination under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the Income-tax Officer was given an opportunity to comment on the affidavits and no application was made to produce the deponent for cross-examination. On that factual basis, the alleged contravention of rule 46A did not raise a question of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the immunity under the voluntary disclosure scheme extended to the assessee, being the father of the minor declarants, so as to give rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The Board's clarification, relied upon in the proceedings, stated that no investigation would be made not only from the declarant but also from other persons, including the guardian of minors. In view of that circular, the controversy did not raise a stateable question of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on this issue either.

Final Conclusion: The application for reference failed because none of the questions proposed by the Revenue disclosed a question of law requiring a statement of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's finding on procedure is one of fact and the governing circular negates the proposed legal controversy, no referable question of law arises for a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---