Taxability on unclear facts requires remand when the record is incomplete and the disputed receipt was not separately addressed.

A technical objection did not prevent the assessee from raising the taxability of the disputed receipt, because the leave petition and appeal as a whole sufficiently covered the item. However, the Court found the record unclear on the facts bearing on that receipt, and the High Court had not dealt with it separately. In those circumstances, taxability could not safely be determined on the existing material, and remand was the proper course. The reference was therefore sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with the decision set aside for the relevant assessment year only.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could be barred on a technical objection from urging that the disputed receipt of Rs. 2,73,488 was taxable. (ii) Whether the taxability of that receipt should be decided on the existing record or the matter should be remanded because the relevant facts were unclear.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could be barred on a technical objection from urging that the disputed receipt of Rs. 2,73,488 was taxable.

Analysis: The appeal related to the assessment year 1943-44 and the only real controversy arising from it concerned the disputed item. The absence of an express reference to that amount in the leave petition did not justify excluding it from consideration, because the general grounds and factual narration covered the item and the appeal necessarily related to the assessment under challenge.

Conclusion: The technical objection was rejected and the assessee was permitted to urge the question of taxability of the disputed amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the taxability of that receipt should be decided on the existing record or the matter should be remanded because the relevant facts were unclear.

Analysis: The record did not clearly establish the facts bearing on the disputed receipt. The High Court had not dealt with the item separately, and the materials relied upon were not safely referable to that specific item. The Court therefore declined to decide taxability on the existing record and treated remand as the proper course, also emphasising that in advisory jurisdiction the High Court should not decide questions not properly arising from the Tribunal's statement of the case.

Conclusion: The matter had to be remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside only for the assessment year 1943-44, and the reference was sent back for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts relevant to a taxability issue are not clearly established on the record before the Court, and the issue has not been properly addressed in the reference, remand is the appropriate course rather than deciding the question on uncertain facts.

---