COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GULAM HYDERKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question posed by this petition is whether a reference under S. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act abates when the legal representatives of the assessee are not brought on record within ninety days of his death. Pending a reference under S. 66(1) made by the Tribunal at the instance of the CIT on the question :

(2.) THE heirs of the deceased assessee, who are represented before us by their counsel, opposed the application on the objection that as the application was not presented within the time prescribed by the Art. 177 of the Limitation Act, the reference should be thrown out as having abated.

(3.) OUR conclusion is reinforced by the wording of Art. 177 of the Limitation Act which prescribes ninety days from the date of death of defendant or the respondent for an application to have the legal representatives of the defendant or respondent made as parties. Thus, emphasis is laid down in th the CPC and the Limitation Act on the defendant or respondent. That Order XXII, CPC, is inapplicable to civil revision petitions under S. 115, CPC, appears from Manickam vs. Ramanathan AIR 1949 Mad 435. A fortiori, the provisions of that order would not be attracted to a reference under S. 66 of the Indian IT Act. There are no rules which have made Order XXII, CPC, applicable to such a reference. The position of an assessee in a reference under S. 66 cannot be equated to that of a defendant or respondent.