Sham sale of immovable property was treated as a factual issue, not a referable question of law.

Whether an alleged sham, collusive or colourable sale of immovable property gave rise to a question of law depended on factual appraisal, not on a pure legal issue. The Tribunal was competent to examine the record and determine whether the transfer was genuine or not, and the mere characterisation of the transaction did not itself create a referable legal question. The existence of parallel civil litigation over the same transaction further confirmed that the dispute was essentially factual. The referred question was therefore not treated as a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order and was not answered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question referred to the High Court, concerning the alleged sham, collusive or colourable sale of immovable property and exclusion of income from property, gave rise to a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The determination whether a transfer of immovable property is sham, collusive, colourable or genuine depends on factual appraisal. The Tribunal was competent to assess that question on the record, and no legal issue arose merely from the characterization of the transaction. The existence of parallel civil litigation regarding the same transaction further reinforced that the matter was essentially factual in nature.

Conclusion: The referred question was not a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order and was not answered.

---