CIT Vs. POTHEN JOSEPH AND SONS
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) These are references by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg, Bangalore, under sub-s. (3) of S.50 of the Travancore Income Tax Act, VIII of 1096. Mr. K.K. Mathew appearing on behalf of the assessee at whose instance this Court required the reference to be made submits before us that his client is not interested in our answering the questions referred.
(2.) Sub-s. (5) of S.50 of the Travancore Income Tax Act VIII of 1096 (like sub-s. (5) of S.66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922) provides that :
the High Court, upon the hearing of any such case, shall decode the question of law raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded.
(3.) In .M.M. Ispahani, Ltd., Calcutta v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188 the Calcutta High Court has decided that when the party who had caused a reference to be made, chooses not to appear at the hearing the Court is not bound to answer the question and should not do so. The position must be the same when the party does enter an appearance but only to submit that he is not interested in the reference being answered.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.