Reference jurisdiction under estate duty law turns on whether a real question of law arises from the Tribunal's findings.

Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act permits reference only where the Tribunal's order gives rise to a real question of law. Questions on whether cash and jewellery formed property passing on death, the chargeability of estate duty, the burden of proof, and whether the findings were perverse were treated as referable and directed to be referred. The proposed valuation issue for the immovable property on a rent-capitalisation basis was not referable because the assessee had already declared the value, accepted in other proceedings, and the facts did not support the suggested question. The reference thus succeeded only on the substantive estate-duty issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order so that a reference should be directed on questions relating to property passing on death, chargeability of estate duty, burden regarding cash and jewellery, perversity of findings, and the value accepted on the basis of the panchnama; (ii) Whether the proposed question concerning valuation of the immovable property on rent capitalisation basis also arose for reference.

Issue (i): Whether questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order so that a reference should be directed on questions relating to property passing on death, chargeability of estate duty, burden regarding cash and jewellery, perversity of findings, and the value accepted on the basis of the panchnama.

Analysis: The controversy concerned the scope of the reference jurisdiction under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Tribunal had rejected the assessee's challenge to the inclusion of cash and jewellery and to the manner in which the burden of proof had been placed. On the facts placed before the Court, the questions framed on these aspects involved legal issues as to the construction of "property passing on the death" under section 2(16), the charge under section 5, and whether the findings were unsupported by evidence or perverse.

Conclusion: The questions relating to cash, jewellery, burden of proof, chargeability, and perversity did arise and were directed to be referred.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed question concerning valuation of the immovable property on rent capitalisation basis also arose for reference.

Analysis: The assessee had himself declared the property at Rs. 70,000, and that valuation had been accepted in wealth-tax and land and building tax proceedings, as well as by an approved valuer. The property consisted largely of uncovered land, and the facts were treated as distinguishable from the authorities relied upon for rent capitalisation valuation. On that footing, no referable question arose on valuation of the immovable property.

Conclusion: The proposed question on valuation of the immovable property was not directed to be referred.

Final Conclusion: The reference application succeeded in part, with reference directed on the substantive estate-duty questions, but refused on the valuation question relating to the immovable property.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for reference, a question is referable if it raises a real issue of law arising from the Tribunal's order, but no reference lies where the proposed question does not arise on the facts found and the material already accepted by the assessee and the authorities.

---