Reference jurisdiction limits prevent enlargement of tax questions after definitive factual findings and render a belated application untenable.

In a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court held that it could not enlarge the scope of the referred question or require a supplementary statement where the Tribunal had already recorded definitive factual findings, including transfer and adequate consideration. Because the Tribunal was confined to the existing record and no useful purpose would be served by further reference, the Court declined to answer the reference. The Court also held that the Commissioner's belated application under section 66(2) was untenable, as it could not be used to revive a challenge to the transaction's validity after the proper course had not been pursued earlier.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should answer the reference on the question referred by the Tribunal, and whether the Commissioner's application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was maintainable.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the limits of the High Court's advisory jurisdiction under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court held that the matter had already been considered by the Tribunal on findings of fact that there had been a transfer and that the transfer was for adequate consideration. In such a situation, no useful purpose would be served by calling for a supplementary statement of the case, particularly as the Tribunal would be confined to the record and could not take additional evidence. The Court further held that the Commissioner could not, at that stage, revive a challenge to the validity of the transaction through section 66(2) when the proper remedy had not been pursued earlier.

Conclusion: The Court declined to answer the reference and held the Commissioner's application under section 66(2) to be untenable.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended without a merits ruling on the taxability of the property income, and the court refused to expand the reference jurisdiction to reach a new question not properly before it.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of the referred question or entertain a belated section 66(2) request where the Tribunal has already recorded definitive findings of fact and a supplementary statement would serve no useful purpose.

---