Rule 46A breach questions are referable when specifically framed; vague legal questions are declined as general.

A question on whether fresh evidence was admitted before the first appellate authority in breach of Rule 46A was treated as referable because it arose from the appellate order and was specifically raised in the reference application. By contrast, a broadly framed challenge to the Tribunal's affirmation of that order was rejected because it did not identify a distinct legal issue with sufficient precision. The discussion emphasises that only a specific, legally identifiable question can be referred, while a vague and general formulation is not fit for reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was required to refer the question whether fresh evidence had been admitted in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. (ii) Whether the proposed question relating to the Tribunal's affirmation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was fit to be referred as a question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was required to refer the question whether fresh evidence had been admitted in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The reference application showed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had acted upon two documents produced before him, and the grievance before the Tribunal specifically raised the legality of admitting fresh evidence in breach of Rule 46A. Since the point arose from the appellate order and was not dealt with in the Tribunal's order, it constituted a referable question.

Conclusion: Yes. The Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer this question to the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed question relating to the Tribunal's affirmation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was fit to be referred as a question of law.

Analysis: The proposed question was framed in broad and general terms and did not identify a specific legal issue arising for consideration with sufficient precision.

Conclusion: No. The question was held to be vague and of a general nature and was declined.

Final Conclusion: The reference application succeeded only on the first question and failed on the second, resulting in partial relief to the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A question arising from the appellate order and framed with sufficient specificity, especially one concerning breach of the rule against fresh evidence, is referable under section 256, whereas a vague and general question is not.

---