Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, does not apply to references made to the High Court under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for an order that the statement of case be amended by substituting the names of Nawabjadi Kamrunnessa Khatoon and Nawabjadi Badrunnessa Khatoon in the place and stead of Nawab Musharaf Hossain, since deceased, also for an order that the delay in filing the paper book be condoned and that the time to file the paper book be extended by three months from the date of the order to be made herein.

( 2 ) THE assessee in this case was Nawab Musharaf Hossain who filed the return on 19th July, 1957, for the assessment year 1955-56. Subsequently, revised returns were filed on October 10, 1958, for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer in making the order of assessment did not accept the assessee's contentions and assessed 1/4th share of the income of the estate less statutory allowance of Rs. 4,500. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that one of the members of the association of persons had no definite or determined share of income from the estate and, therefore, income could be assessed only in the hands of the said association of persons. On further appeal to the Income-tax Tribunal by the department the Tribunal by a consolidated order dated May 18, 1964, rejected the department's contentions and dismissed the appeals. Thereafter, the Commissioner made an application under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the Tribunal to draw up the statement of case and refer several questions to this court. Out of five questions required to be referred, the Tribunal by an order dated September 9, 1966, referred only two questions. Thereafter, the Commissioner made these separate applications in respect of each assessment year under Section 66 (2) of the 1922 Act, requiring the Tribunal to draw up a further statement of the case and refer the three remaining questions for the opinion of this court. This court directed the Tribunal to draw up a consolidated statement of the case concerning three references and refer the questions of law set out in this order. In compliance with the order of December 24, 1968, the Tribunal submitted a consolidated statement of case to this court. Thereafter, an order was made on April 9, 1970, by which this court directed service of consolidated index of papers on the respondent within three weeks from the date of the order and further directed filing of consolidated paper books within three months.

( 3 ) ON February 17, 1972, the references appeared in the special list and since the assessee had died, this court directed that the petitioner should make a formal application for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. This application has been made pursuant to this direction.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contended that in the reference under Section 66 (2) of the 1922 Act, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have already been brought on the record but in the references under Section 66 (1) of the said Act the name of the deceased still appears. It was submitted that on March 25, 1970, the Commissioner imade an application for consolidation of References Nos. 202, 210 and 215 of 1967 with Reference No. 169 of 1967. On this application an order was made on March 31, 1970, by which this court allowed the Commissioner's application for consolidation. This order for consolidation has become final and is binding on the parties.

( 5 ) LEARNED advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that this application is barred by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He further argued that the Code of Civil Procedure applied and, therefore, Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code was attracted and since an application has not been made within time the application has abated and no order can be made as prayed for. He also relied on Rule 6 of the Rules of this court under the Indian Income-tax Act and submitted that this court could not extend or enlarge t