NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed the following question for our consideration and reply:-- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Tribunal was justified to hold that assessee's case did not qualify for acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme."
2. Learned counsel for the revenue by relying upon a reported judgment of the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in Shai H. Mama and Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of income Tax (1967) 16-Tax 43) states that in absence of the assessee at whose instance" the aforesaid questions 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 question has been referred to us. In the view of their Lordships the obligation of the High Court to decide the questions of law revered 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 to the Court was present are had argued its case. Therefore, their Lordships found that they were not bound to answer the question referred to it if the party at whose instance had been referred 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) 7 ITR 188).
4. Being in respectful agreement with their Lordships in absence of the assessee at whose instance the above question has been referred, we will decline to answer and dispose of the reference accordingly .