9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 66(5) of the Indian Income Tax Act regarding the mandatory nature of answering references when the assessee is absent at the hearing. Analysis: The judgment involves a consideration of whether under section 66(5) of the Indian Income Tax Act, the High Court is obligated to answer a reference when the assessee, who initiated the reference, is absent at the hearing. The court examined the language of section 66(5), which states that the High Court shall decide on the questions of law raised and deliver its judgment. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction under section 66 is limited to deciding questions properly referred to it and is purely advisory. The court further delved into previous judgments to determine the scope of section 66(5) in situations where the assessee is absent at the hearing. It cited cases where it was held that the High Court is not bound to answer the reference if the question is of academic interest only or if the question referred is irrelevant or unnecessary. The court highlighted that it retains the jurisdiction to decline to answer a reference that is purely academic or irrelevant. Moreover, the court discussed a case where the Calcutta High Court held that if parties are not present at the hearing, it may imply their lack of desire to pursue the matter further. The court concurred with the decision that it is not mandatory for the High Court to hear the reference in the absence of the assessee who initiated it. However, the court disagreed with the notion that the court should not answer the reference at all in such cases, emphasizing that the decision to answer or not is a matter of discretion. Ultimately, the court concluded that it is not bound to answer the reference when the assessee is absent at the hearing, aligning with the interpretation that the High Court may refuse to answer the reference as per section 66(5) of the Act. Consequently, in the present case, the court exercised its discretion and refrained from answering the questions raised, awarding costs in one reference and not ordering costs in another, with fixed advocate fees.
|
