NASIM SIKANDAR, J.-- The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following questions for our consideration and reply:-
(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in refusing to allow the additional ground of appeal taken up before it?
(ii) Whether in fact no prejudice in law as caused to the assessee by not issuing a notice u/s. 13(2) after the I.A.C.'s approval of the value of the property in question u/s. 13(9)(d) when such a notice was obligatory in law?
(iii) Whether the valuation of the property as taken by the officers below for purpose of addition u/s. 13(1 )(d) is based on any basis or material and is sustainable in law?
Learned counsel for the revenue by relying upon a reported judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in re: Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of income Tax (1967)
16-Tax 43) states that in absence of the assessee at whose instance the aforesaid question were referred, no opinion can be expressed by this Court.
3. In the said judgment their Lordships interpreted the provisions of Section 66(5) of the Income Tax Act 1922 which are similar to Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance under which the aforesaid questions have been referred to us. In the view of their Lordships the obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it was contingent upon the hearing of the case. Further that the hearing of the case could not be made unless the party at whose instance the question had been referred, had remained absent. Reference in that respect was made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in re: M.M. Ispahani Ltd. V. Commissioner of Excess profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 87 TTR, 188).
4. Being in respectful agreement with their Lordships in absence of the assessee at whose instance the above questions have been referred, we will decline to answer and dispose of the reference accordingly.