Referable question of law requires the issue to arise from the Tribunal's order and not be raised for the first time.

Advances made under film exploitation agreements were treated as legally enforceable debts because the agreements imposed an obligation to repay from exploitation proceeds, but the question whether those debts became bad in a particular year was ordinarily one of fact. The High Court also held that a contention not raised before the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to arise out of its order for reference under section 66. As the assessee's challenge that the advances were not debts had not been argued below, no referable question of law was made out under section 66(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee's advance losses could be treated as bad debts under section 10(2)(xi), and whether the questions sought to be referred arose out of the Tribunal's order despite not having been raised before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The advances made by the assessee were held to constitute legally enforceable debts, since the agreements created an obligation to repay out of the exploitation proceeds of the films. The Court further noted that the matter whether a debt is bad and in which year it becomes bad is ordinarily a question of fact. At the same time, the particular contention pressed before the High Court, namely that the advances did not amount to debts due to the assessee, had not been raised before the Appellate Tribunal. A question not raised or considered by the Tribunal cannot be treated as arising from its order for the purpose of a reference under section 66.

Conclusion: No referable question of law was made out under section 66(2), and the petition failed.

---