Reference under Wealth-tax law fails where proposed questions challenge only factual findings on concealment and valuation.

A reference under section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is not competent where the proposed questions merely dispute the Tribunal's factual finding that a difference in share valuation arose from allowance for liabilities and did not establish concealment under section 18(1)(c). The High Court treated the Tribunal's view as a basic finding of fact, not a question of law. Because the reference application challenged only that factual appreciation and did not raise any referable legal issue, the statutory condition for reference was not met.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference under section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 was competent when the Tribunal had deleted penalties under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on the basis of its factual finding that the difference in valuation arose from allowance for liabilities and did not establish concealment.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on its assessment that the assessee's valuation of shares was affected by the treatment of liabilities, and that the lower figure returned did not amount to concealment of particulars of wealth. The High Court treated this as a basic finding of fact. Since the proposed questions challenged that factual appreciation and did not raise a referable question of law, the statutory requirement for a reference was not satisfied.

Conclusion: A reference under section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 was not competent because the proposed questions were questions of fact.

---