Binding precedent on wealth-tax debt treatment meant no referable question of law arose and reference was rejected.

Where the proposed reference concerned allowance of accumulated tax liability as a debt owed on the valuation dates under wealth-tax law, the Tribunal held that no referable question of law arose because the issue was already settled by binding Delhi High Court precedent. The same point had been answered in favour of the assessee, so the controversy was treated as covered and academic. On that basis, the reference applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order concerning allowance of accumulated tax liability as a debt owed on the valuation dates under the wealth-tax law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's claim by following an existing Delhi High Court decision which had already answered the same point. Since the controversy was already concluded by binding precedent, no useful purpose would be served by directing a reference. The matter was therefore treated as covered and academic.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose and the reference applications were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the question proposed for reference is already concluded by a binding High Court decision, no referable question of law arises and reference need not be made.

---