Advisory reference under Section 66 is not abated by death; substitution of legal representatives permitted to decide merits.

The text clarifies that references to the High Court under the Income-tax Act constitute advisory proceedings and are to be decided on their merits; consequently, the abatement provisions of Order XXII CPC, including rule 4, do not apply to such references, and the reference does not automatically abate on the death of a party. The Court may direct procedural steps to enable determination of the question, including permitting substitution of the deceased assessee's legal representatives and directing the Registrar to bring nominated representatives before the Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions of Order 22, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to a reference made to the High Court under section 66 of the Income-tax Act; (ii) Whether substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee may be permitted in the reference and in the application for leave to appeal.

Issue (i): Whether Order 22, rule 4, Civil Procedure Code applies to references under section 66 of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The Court examined the nature of a section 66 reference as an advisory proceeding in which the High Court is bound to answer the question stated to it. The Court reviewed precedent and statutory scheme showing that provisions governing suits and appeals (Order XXII CPC) have not been made applicable to references under section 66, and that sections 66(5) and 66A(1) (and related procedural provisions) envisage hearing by the High Court without invoking the abatement mechanism of Order XXII. The Court relied on prior decisions holding that special proceedings for stating a case are not subject to the common-law or Code abatement rules applicable to suits or appeals.

Conclusion: Order 22, rule 4, Civil Procedure Code does not apply to references under section 66 of the Income-tax Act; conclusion in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether substitution of the deceased assessee's legal representatives should be permitted in the reference and in the application for leave to appeal.

Analysis: Applying the principle that a reference under section 66 is not abated by the death or absence of a party and that the Court may direct the Registrar to bring legal representatives before it, the Court considered the factual record of the executors seeking substitution. Precedent was cited where courts directed notice to or allowed participation of legal representatives in similar references. The Court treated substitution applications as procedural measures for convenience in advisory proceedings rather than as matters governed by Order XXII abatement rules.

Conclusion: The application for substitution is allowed and the names of the nominated legal representatives are to be substituted; conclusion in favour of the assessee (and the executors seeking substitution).

Final Conclusion: The High Court's advisory jurisdiction under section 66 of the Income-tax Act requires that references be decided on merits notwithstanding the death of a party; Order XXII CPC abatement rules are not applicable to such references and substitution of legal representatives may be permitted to enable the Court to decide the question.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference to the High Court under section 66 of the Income-tax Act is an advisory proceeding in which the High Court is bound to answer the question stated and, therefore, the abatement provisions of Order XXII, Civil Procedure Code do not apply; the Court may direct procedural steps, including substitution of legal representatives, to enable determination of the reference.

---