Reference under income-tax law cannot be compelled on factual findings or inadequate reasons where no question of law arises.

The Commissioner's post-remand action was treated in substance as disposal of the appeal under Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and not as a separate revisional proceeding; describing it as a revision did not alter its legal character. A writ of mandamus to compel a further reference was unavailable because the complaint concerned only the sufficiency of reasons and findings on the enhanced assessment, which were matters of fact rather than questions of law. The HC therefore would not interfere or require a reference where no referable legal question arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner's proceeding after the High Court's earlier direction was an appeal under Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, rather than a revision, and whether his refusal to state a further case was ; (ii) whether any question of law arose so as to justify a writ of mandamus compelling the Commissioner to make a reference.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner's proceeding after the High Court's earlier direction was an appeal under Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, rather than a revision, and whether his refusal to state a further case was wrong.

Analysis: The earlier direction of the High Court was understood to require the Commissioner to dispose of the matter in accordance with the judgment on the reference, and the Commissioner's subsequent consideration of the Assistant Commissioner's reasons was in substance the disposal of the appeal already before him. The use of the word "revision" in his refusal letter did not change the true character of the proceeding. The essential point was that the Commissioner was acting to give effect to the High Court's direction under Section 66(5), not exercising a separate revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was not legally wrong merely because he described the proceeding as a revision; in substance it was the appeal disposed of under Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (ii): Whether any question of law arose so as to justify a writ of mandamus compelling the Commissioner to make a reference.

Analysis: The grievance was directed only at the Commissioner's finding that there were ample materials supporting the enhanced assessment and at his failure to give detailed reasons. That complaint related to the sufficiency of reasons for a finding of fact. The Act did not impose a legal duty to state detailed reasons in such circumstances, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to re-examine findings of fact or the adequacy of reasons supporting them. Since no question of law arose from the order, there was no basis to compel a reference.

Conclusion: No question of law arose, and no mandamus could issue to compel a reference.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the Commissioner's order raised no referable question of law, and the High Court would not interfere with findings of fact in income-tax proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court cannot compel a reference under the income-tax reference provisions where the grievance concerns only findings of fact or the sufficiency of reasons for those findings, because such matters do not constitute questions of law.

---