Reference under income-tax law requires a question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, not a new factual contention.

A reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act can be compelled only when a question of law emerges from the Tribunal's order. Where the only pressed objection concerned the manner of working out profits on commercial principles, the Tribunal treated it as an internal partnership matter that did not affect genuineness. A further contention based on debit of the partners' income-tax liabilities could not support a reference because it had not been argued before the Tribunal and did not arise from its order. On that reasoning, no referable question of law was shown and mandamus to compel reference was properly refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, any question of law arose so as to justify a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, and whether the refusal to state the questions was .

Analysis: The only ground pressed before the Tribunal was that the profits were not worked out according to commercial principles. The Tribunal treated that matter as one concerning the internal affairs of the partnership and not affecting its genuineness. The additional ground that the partners' income-tax liabilities were debited to the firm's accounts had not been argued before the Tribunal and therefore did not arise out of its order. Under section 66(2), only questions of law emerging from the Tribunal's order can be required to be referred.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the request for mandamus to compel reference was rightly refused.

---