- (1.) AT the instance of the CWT, Agra, the Tribunal (Delhi 'D' Bench, Delhi), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that r. 1BB is mandatory and not directory ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that r. 1BB framed by the CBDT under power available to it under S. 46 which was enacted w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 has retrospective operation ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee who had declared the value of this property in the wealth-tax at a certain figure can claim reduction thereon by application of r. 1BB without filing a revised return and without claiming that there was a mistake in returning the market value in the returns filed ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that before making a reference to the Valuation Officer under S. 7(3) the WTO has to form his opinion by taking into account the provisions of r. 1BB whether the value declared by the assessee does not represent the market value ? (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Valuation Officer, estimating the market value of the property under S. 16A(5), will have to estimate the value in accordance with the provisions of r. 1BB ?"
(2.) WE have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the CIT. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee respondent in spite of service of notice. The proceedings relate to asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1974-75. The CWT had sought a reference of only two questions as below : "(i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in its finding that in determining the value of the immovable properties the reversionary value of the land cannot be separately added ? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in its finding that r. 1BB of the WT Rules, 1957, have not been made effective from 1st April, 1979 was to apply even in respect of pending assessment for orders prior to asst. yr. 1979-80?"
(3.) UNDER S. 27 of the WT Act the Tribunal has no suo motu power of referring a question of law for the opinion of this Court. It is only such questions as the assessee or the CWT by making an application require it to refer to the High Court. The Tribunal has referred five questions observing that in the orders dt. 31st Aug., 1981 out of which reference arises, it had relied on an order dt. 17th Feb., 1981 made by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Biju Patnaik in WTA Nos. 614 to 624 (Del) of 1979 and the questions that have been referred by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik are being referred to the High Court for opinion. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to refer the questions simply because they had been referred to the High Court in some other case. Out of the five questions referred by the Tribunal only question No. 2 corresponds to question No. 2 as required by the CWT. Therefore, we will answer only question No. 2 out of the five questions and we decline to answer questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 because the CWT had not required the Tribunal to refer them for the opinion of this Court.;