JUDGMENT 1. These references have been made by way of application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the assessee (arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated December 17, 1986) pertaining to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 for opinion of the court on the following questions :D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1987 : "1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order because of not bringing on records all the four legal representatives by the Income-tax Officer particularly when the Income-tax Officer was aware of there being four legal representatives of the deceased, Shri Jagannath Sharma ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order dated January 15, 1985, when the impugned assessment order was made after set aside of earlier assessment order dated March 28, 1981, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B-Range, Jaipur, vide his order dated February 17, 1982, and directions contained therein remaining uncomplied with ? D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 94 of 1987 : 1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order because of not bringing on records all the four legal representatives by the Income-tax Officer particularly when the Income-tax Officer was aware of there being four legal representatives of the deceased, Shri Jagannath Sharma ? D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 96 of 1987 : 1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order because of not bringing on records all the four legal representatives by the Income-tax Officer particularly when the Income-tax Officer was aware of there being four legal representatives of the deceased, Shri Jagannath Sharma ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in not annulling the assessment order dated January 15, 1985, when the impugned assessment order was made after set aside of earlier assessment order dated March 8, 1982, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B-Range, Jaipur, vide his order dated October 30, 1982, and directions contained therein remaining uncomplied with ?" 2. For convenience, we are referring the facts of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1987 which are as follows. 3. The Assessing Officer conducted assessment of the assessee pertaining to the aforesaid years, vide orders dated March 28, 1981. For convenience, we are referring the facts of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1987 which are as follows. 3. The Assessing Officer conducted assessment of the assessee pertaining to the aforesaid years, vide orders dated March 28, 1981. Appeal was filed by the assessee against the orders before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated March 8, 1982, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer remanding it back for fresh disposal. The Assessing Officer decided the remanded matter, vide order dated January 15, 1985, after issuing notices to Ramakant Sharma, the legal representative of the deceased Jagannath Sharma. The widow of deceased, Smt. Kesar Devi preferred appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging the order dated January 15, 1985, passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeals were preferred by Smt. Kesar Devi on the ground that she being the legal representative of the deceased Jagannath Sharma has not been heard, therefore, the assessment is bad in the eye of law. The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) recording the findings that the aggrieved person Ramakant Sharma has been heard to whom notice was issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the appeal of Kesar Devi is not maintainable as it is not an assessment order against her. Further, appeal was preferred against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated October 10, 1985, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal who after hearing the parties, remanded the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh after hearing all the legal representatives of the deceased and by providing opportunity of hearing to the Income-tax Officer as well. 4. In such circumstances, these references have been made by the widow of the deceased, Smt. Kesar Devi. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The question referred to us is based on the issue as to whether without affording opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased, the assessment order can be passed, more specifically when the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased Jagannath Sharma. The question referred to us is based on the issue as to whether without affording opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased, the assessment order can be passed, more specifically when the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased Jagannath Sharma. It has bearing in the record that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to pass the assessment order after providing opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives and pursuant to which, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer after providing opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives. Thus, question of law as to whether an order can be passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased becomes academic in nature, more so when subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner making assessment after providing opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives have not been challenged by the appellants. 7. Thus in view of the fact and circumstances, the question so referred are not required to be answered as they remain only academic in nature and even if those questions are decided, in that event also, it will not be of any significance as the only grievance raised by the appellants has been redressed by providing opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives of the deceased Jagannath Sharma. 8. The exercise of making these references has become futile. These references are accordingly disposed of. *******