Reference jurisdiction requires an actual answer to the referred question; High Court judgment remitted for rehearing.

The reference concerned whether interest levied under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act survived reassessment under section 148. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not actually answer the question of law referred to it and appeared to have proceeded as if exercising appellate rather than reference jurisdiction. As the reference question remained unanswered, the matter was sent back for rehearing and a proper answer on the question of law, with liberty to reframe the question if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, while dealing with a reference, had answered the question of law referred to it and, if not, whether the matter required to be remitted for rehearing and proper answer.

Analysis: The reference question concerned the survival of interest levied under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after reassessment under section 148. The order records that the High Court's judgment did not show an answer to the referred question and that it appeared to have proceeded as though exercising appellate jurisdiction instead of reference jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the matter had to be sent back for the High Court to rehear the reference and answer the question of law, with liberty to reframe it if necessary.

Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside and the reference was remitted for rehearing and answer to the question of law.

---