JUDGMENT
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. At the instance of the applicant (executor of the will), the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law on applications registered as R. As. Nos. 109 to 113/(Ind) of 1990 arising out of the order dated January 17, 1990, passed by the Tribunal in W. T. As. Nos. 84 to 88/(Ind) of 1989 for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act”), for our opinion :
” Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the benefit of Section 7(4) is not available to an executrix-assessee who was assessed in a representative capacity, who was also the sole legatee and who continued to live in the building for which the said benefit was claimed ?”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the net wealth of the estate of the deceased Maharaja Holkar of Indore was assessed in the hands of Maharani Sharmisthabai Holkar as executrix of the will of the deceased under Section 16(3) read with Section 19A of the Act, Maharaja Tukojirao passed away in 1978. He left a will under which the assessee, namely, Smt. Sharmisthabai, was the sole legatee and beneficiary who lived all along in the residential house covered under the will. The assessee claimed benefit of Section 7(4) of the Act which was negatived by the Wealth-tax Officer (annexures “A-I” to “A-V”). The assessee then filed the appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who accepted the plea of the assessee and allowed the benefit (annexure “P”). The Department then filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit (annexure “C”). The assessee then filed applications under Section 27(1) of the Act. The Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law.
3. None appeared for the applicant/assessee. Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appeared for the non-applicant/Department and submitted that the assessee, sole legatee and beneficiary died long back and no steps have been taken to place on record the legal representatives of the accountable person. He, therefore, submitted that this court may decline to answer the question as no steps have been taken to enable the hearing of this case.
4. As held in Jamunadas v. CST [1993] 38 MPLJ 462 (MP) and the common order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 303 of 1986–B. R. Phosphate v. CST and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 304 of 1986–B. R. Phosphate v. CST by this court on November 6, 1995, this court is not bound to answer the reference. In Jamunadas v. CST [1993] 38 MPLJ 462, it is held as under :
” For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the Department quantified at Rs. 150.”
5. As the assessee has expired and no one has taken the appropriate steps, we dismiss this reference in default and for not taking necessary steps.
6. The Tribunal be informed accordingly.