1975 (2) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Application for substitution of legal representative in a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Interpretation of provisions regarding abatement of cases on the death of an assessee. Applicability of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure to cases of reference under the Act. Analysis of relevant legal precedents and judgments from different High Courts. Examination of the jurisdiction of the High Court in advisory or consultative matters. Consideration of provisions in the Income-tax Act and the Code of Civil Procedure regarding abatement and substitution of legal representatives in proceedings.

The judgment addresses an application for substituting the legal representative of a deceased assessee in a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue arose due to a discrepancy in the date of death of the assessee, with the petitioner claiming knowledge shortly before the application for substitution was made. The proposed legal representative, the widow of the assessee, contested the application's timing, citing limitations under the Limitation Act. The argument revolved around whether the case abated due to non-substitution within the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on various court decisions to support the contention that provisions like Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to references under the Income-tax Act.

The judgment delves into the interpretation of legal provisions and precedents to determine the applicability of Order XXII of the Code to cases of reference under the Income-tax Act. It highlights the distinction between civil proceedings and advisory jurisdiction exercised by High Courts in reference cases. The analysis of past judgments from different High Courts establishes a consistent view that abatement rules applicable to civil suits do not extend to reference proceedings under the Act. The judgment emphasizes the unique nature of reference cases and the absence of specific provisions for abatement in the Income-tax Act.

Furthermore, the judgment examines the legislative intent behind the provisions in the Income-tax Act and the Code of Civil Procedure regarding abatement and substitution of legal representatives. It underscores the selective application of procedural rules from the Code to proceedings under the Act, indicating a deliberate legislative choice. The judgment rejects the application of Order XXII of the Code to reference cases, emphasizing the need to ensure the High Court's ability to answer questions referred to it despite the death of the assessee. Ultimately, the court rules in favor of allowing the substitution of the legal representative, dismissing objections based on abatement due to the death of the assessee.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the non-applicability of Order XXII of the Code to cases of reference under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the unique nature of advisory jurisdiction exercised by High Courts in such matters. It underscores the legislative intent behind the procedural provisions and highlights the need to ensure the continuity of proceedings despite the death of an assessee. The ruling allows for the substitution of the legal representative, maintaining the integrity of the reference process under section 256 of the Act.