Reference questions must arise from the Tribunal's actual findings; a mismatched question based on section 80J(6A) was properly rejected.

The Tribunal treated section 80J(6A) as directory and section 139(9) as procedural because it formed part of the assessment process. On that basis, a reference could not be framed on a proposed question that did not arise from the Tribunal's actual conclusions and did not challenge the finding on the procedural character of section 139(9). The reference application therefore sought an answer not borne out by the order under challenge, and was rightly rejected as not fit for reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed question regarding compliance with section 80J(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arose out of the Tribunal's order so as to justify a reference.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already held that section 80J(6A) was directory in nature, and that section 139(9) was procedural because it formed part of the assessment process. The proposed question did not challenge any separate finding on the procedural character of section 139(9) and was not framed in terms that arose from the Tribunal's actual conclusions. The reference application therefore sought an answer to a question that was not borne out by the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The proposed question did not arise out of the Tribunal's order and was not fit to be referred. The reference application was rightly rejected.

---