9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Substitution in a pending application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; Applicability of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code to a reference under section 66 of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The case involved an application for substitution in a pending application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The deceased assessee's legal representatives sought to be added as parties in the ongoing proceedings. The main contention was whether the provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code applied to the case. Order 22, rule 4 of the Code pertains to substitution of legal representatives in case of a deceased defendant, and the abatement of suits if no application is made within the specified time. However, the court deliberated on the nature of a reference made under section 66 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that once a reference is made to the High Court, the court is obligated to answer the question raised, and the parties are present to assist the court in its decision-making process. The court examined previous judgments and held that the provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to references under section 66 of the Income Tax Act. The court cited cases where it was established that the proceedings should continue even in the event of the death of the assessee, and the legal representatives could be brought before the court for convenience. The court emphasized that the High Court's role in such references is advisory, and the proceedings cannot be halted due to the absence or death of a party. The court clarified that the principle of abatement under common law does not apply to special proceedings like those under the Income Tax Act, and the court is bound to answer the question raised in the reference. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the application for substitution, allowing the deceased assessee's legal representatives to be added as parties in the ongoing proceedings. The court concluded that the application should succeed, and an order was made accordingly, without any costs imposed on the parties involved. In agreement with the judgment, Sen, J. concurred with the decision reached by the court.
|
