Jurisdiction on referred questions of law cannot be expanded to decide a different issue never arising from the Tribunal's order.

Jurisdiction under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is confined to questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had proceeded on the footing that dividend income accrued in British India, but the High Court substituted a different issue by deciding whether the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 applied to the assessee. Because the two questions were not co-extensive and one did not include the other, the High Court could not replace the referred question with a new one. Its decision was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for determination of the question originally framed by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could frame and decide a question of law not arising out of the Tribunal's order and, on that basis, determine the assessee's entitlement to concession under paragraph 4 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under section 66 is confined to questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had decided the reference on the footing that the dividend income accrued in British India, whereas the High Court proceeded on a different footing and decided the distinct question whether the Concessions Order applied to the assessee. The two questions were neither co-extensive nor one included in the other. A High Court may amplify a referred question to cover all approaches to the same issue, but it cannot substitute an entirely different question that the Tribunal never considered.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding a question of law not arising out of the Tribunal's order, and its order was set aside with a remand to decide the question originally framed by the Tribunal.

---