9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. S. PATHAK. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by PATHAK J.- This reference has been made at the instance of the assessee under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. During the pendency of the reference, Sri V. P. Tewari entered appearance as counsel on behalf of the assessee, but thereafter Sri Tewari ceased to practice in this court. Notice was served upon the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s judgment thereon,...." At first blush it would appear that the High Court is bound to decide the questions of law and it cannot do otherwise. But on further examination we find it difficult to accept the position that, where a party at whose instance the reference has been made could have appeared when the case is called on for hearing, but does not do so, the High Court is still obliged to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w referred to it. The position was considered by the Calcutta High Court in M. M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax , where upon similar reasoning the court declined to answer the question of law. The view taken in that case was followed by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pothen Joseph and Sons. The Madras High Court in Tamarind Products, Vello ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not a case where the assessee could have appeared but did not do so. We may point out that in M. M. Ispahani's case the judgment proceeded also upon the view that sub-section (5) of section 66 contemplates a hearing of the case by the High Court that there can be no hearing in the absence of the party who has caused the reference to be made, and therefore the High Court should not decide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
