Reference jurisdiction is limited to referred questions; courts cannot reframe issues beyond the Tribunal's reference.

Under a reference jurisdiction, the High Court is confined to answering the specific questions of law referred by the Tribunal and cannot assume appellate powers by reframing or enlarging them. If the referred question does not correctly capture the real controversy, the proper course is to call for a supplementary statement of the case so the Tribunal may state the correct question. The advisory jurisdiction of the SC is equally limited to the reference made. A High Court decision on questions not referred was therefore without jurisdiction and was set aside, with the matter remitted for decision on the referred question.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court could reframe the questions and decide issues not referred to it by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The reference jurisdiction under section 66(1) is confined to answering the questions of law actually referred by the Tribunal. If the question framed does not adequately bring out the real point in controversy, the proper course is to call for a supplementary statement of the case and require the Tribunal to submit the correct question for opinion. The High Court cannot assume appellate powers and determine new questions which do not arise from the referred question. The Court also reiterated that its own advisory jurisdiction is similarly limited and cannot extend to questions outside the reference.

Conclusion: The High Court acted without jurisdiction in reframing and deciding questions not referred to it; its order was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision according to law on the referred question.

---