MATHURA PRASAD RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this matter was called, the petitioner was not available to be heard. Learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department was, however, heard in the matter.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an application stating that he had engaged M/s. B. K. Mohanty, P. K. Mishra, S. P. Choudhury, etc., in S. J. C. No. 34 of 1980. Since he suffered from serious bronchitis and other ailments, he was immobile and confined to bed from August 6, 1990, to October 4, 1990. THErefore, he could not have any contact with the advocates engaged by him nor could he prosecute the reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After recovery, he came to know that the reference was listed for hearing and on account of his absence and the absence of counsel engaged, this court had passed an order dated August 9, 1990, refusing to answer the questions of law arising in that case. THErefore, he prays for restoration of the application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act as the tax liability is more than Rs. 50,000 and he is aged 72 years.