Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) In this case we find a situation which has arisen before, but with regard to which we did not take any decision. As the situation has become one of rather frequent occurrence, it is necessary to decide the question arising and to settle the practice of the Court.
(2.) We have before us a Reference made by the Calcutta Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act, read with Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, of a certain question of law. The reference has been made at the instance of the assessees, M. M. Ispahani Limited, Calcutta, and it was made under Section 66(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has, in accordance with the rules obtaining at the time when the Reference was made, caused the paper-book to be prepared and printed and has filed the same. The matter has now come up for hearing.
(3.) No hearing, however, can take place, as the assessees who caused the Reference to be made are not attending. As I have said, this has happened before, but in spite of the absence of the assessees who had caused the Reference, we decided the question of law in those cases, as we felt some doubt, in view of the language of Sub-section (5) of Section 66, as to whether it was open to the High Court to decline to answer a question for the reason that the party who had caused the Reference to be made, was not appearing. We have now considered the matter further and it appears to us that when the party who has caused a Reference to be made, chooses not to appear at the hearing, this Court is not bound to answer the question and should not do so.;