TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (8) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l were decided is dt. 17th Aug., 1987. The Revenue has now moved an application dt. 4th Aug., 1988 seeking to substitute Shri Arun Kumar Mittal and Shri Ashish Mittal as the legal representatives of the deceased. 2. Objections have been filed on behalf of Shri Arum Mittal, son of the deceased, stating that the applications under s. 27(1) are incompetent as they have been filed against a dead person. It has also been stated that the ITO concerned was informed on 9th March, 1988 about the death of the deceased and that assessment for asst. yr. 1985-86 has been completed on the legal representative. 3. We have heard the learned Departmental Representatives and Shri C.S. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions with an application for condonation of delay in moving the amended petition. Reliance was also placed on Deen Dayal Goyal vs. ITAT (1986) 51 CTR (Del) 1 : (1986) 158 ITR 391 (Del) in which Hon'ble the Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal had no right to condone delay in the presentation of an appeal in acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the special provision exclude the application of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the assessee also referred to O. 1, r/ 10 of the CPC, which relates to addition or substitution of parties. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the provisions of the, CPC, relating to joinder/non-joinder of parties and relating to bringing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 ITR 163 (All), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that a reference pending before the High Court does not abate for failure of the CIT to apply to bring legal representative on record. In this case also the Hon'ble High Court had held that the provisions of O. 22 of the CPC did not apply to Income-tax matters. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Gouri shankar Lal Singha (1967) 63 ITR 771 (Cal). Hon'ble the Rajasthan High Court also took a similar view in CIT vs. H.H. Maharaja Sawai Man Singh (1973) 89 ITR 123 (Raj) and held that a reference under s. 66(2) of the IT Act, 1922 did not abate on the death of the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court held that an application under s. 66(2) was not a civil proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not been made applicable to tax proceedings. Under the provisions of the IT Act as well as the WT Act, there are no provisions specifying the manner and the time in which the legal representative should be brought on record and has already pointed out there are also no provisions specifying who shall be the parties in particular proceedings. In the Form No. 37 prescribed under the IT Rules for the presentation of a reference application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, though there is a column indicating the names of the parties, i.e., the applicant and the respondent, there is nothing anywhere to indicate that an erroneous description of one or the other would nullify the application. Rule, 26 of the Tribunal Rules, 1963 provides tha....