Statutory reference rights prevail over procedural defects, and only questions of law fit for High Court reference.

A procedural certificate requirement under rule 191(2) was treated as subordinate to the substantive statutory right to seek reference under section 256(2), so omission of the certificate did not justify dismissal where the statute itself imposed no such condition or penalty. The text also notes that questions arising from the chartered accountant's authority and the addition of income were considered suitable for reference: questions 1 and 3 were held to be questions of law fit for the High Court, while question 2 was not considered necessary for determination. The stated principle is that procedural compliance cannot override a statutory reference right unless the statute expressly makes it mandatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was bound to state a case and refer questions of law under section 256(2) despite the absence of the certificate contemplated by rule 191(2); (ii) whether the questions relating to the chartered accountant's authority and the addition of Rs. 15,000 required reference to the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Tribunal was bound to state a case and refer questions of law under section 256(2) despite the absence of the certificate contemplated by rule 191(2)

Analysis: The right to apply under section 256(2) was treated as a substantive statutory right. The rule requiring a certificate from the Tribunal was viewed as procedural, and the Court noted that the section itself did not impose such a condition for maintainability. The Court also observed that no penalty for non-compliance was provided in the rule or in the section, and declined to treat the omission as a defect justifying dismissal of the application.

Conclusion: The omission of the certificate did not render the application liable to dismissal, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the questions relating to the chartered accountant's authority and the addition of Rs. 15,000 required reference to the High Court

Analysis: The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had proceeded on the basis of the chartered accountant's concession, and the Court considered the resulting question important and arising from the Tribunal's order. It held that the first and third questions were questions of law fit for reference, while the second question did not require determination.

Conclusion: Questions 1 and 3 were directed to be referred to the High Court, and question 2 was not considered necessary for reference.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in securing reference of the substantial questions of law, and the procedural objection based on rule 191(2) did not defeat the application.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural rule cannot defeat a statutory right to seek reference under section 256(2) unless the statute itself makes such compliance mandatory or prescribes dismissal for non-compliance.

---