High Court cannot resolve disputed facts in income-tax reference when Tribunal findings are unclear; supplementary statement required.

In a reference under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court cannot decide an unresolved question of fact on its own when the Tribunal's findings are incomplete or ambiguous. Where the Tribunal had not clearly found whether the assessee set up only a pilot plant or whether pre-1 April 1948 production was merely experimental, the proper course was to proceed on the existing findings and, if necessary, call for a supplementary statement under section 66(4). The High Court erred by treating the factual controversy as established and resolving it itself; the matter had to be remitted for supplementary findings and fresh disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in a reference under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could go behind the Tribunal's order and determine disputed facts itself instead of calling for a supplementary statement from the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal's order did not contain a clear finding on whether the assessee had set up only a pilot plant or whether production before 1 April 1948 was merely experimental. In such a situation, the reference court was required to proceed on the findings as they stood and, if necessary, obtain a supplementary statement under section 66(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court erred in treating the factual position as established and in resolving the factual controversy on its own while answering the reference.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in determining the disputed facts itself; the matter had to be remitted for a supplementary statement and fresh disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court cannot decide an unresolved question of fact on its own and must call for a supplementary statement when the Tribunal's findings are insufficient or ambiguous.

---