COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. DOSHI S V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN fact this is a reference case before us pointing out the defect that the respondent-assessee having expired, no steps are taken by the Revenue in spite of the report "addressee expired". IN INcome-tax References Nos. 35 and 36 of 1990 (CIT v. K. P. Varoo [1998] 229 ITR 667) decided by us on July 5, 1996, we had a similar occasion where the respondent assessee had expired and efforts in the direction of bringing the heirs and legal representatives were not successful. Since the function of the reference court is to answer the questions referred, taking the assistance of counsel appearing in the matter, we answered the question referred therein. We have relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, Kishori Lal Makundi Lal, IN re [1941] 9 ITR 193.

(2.) ON hearing learned senior standing counsel for taxes, on the merits, as we find that the answer to the question referred is covered completely by the decision of the apex court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, leaving us to state the legal position for the guidance of the Tribunal. We take up the answer to the question accordingly. The question is as follows :

(3.) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner decided to exclude relying on the provisions of Explanation II(ii)(e) of the said Rules.