R.K.Gulati, J. - (1.) These are nine applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1976-77. By these applications, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has required that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer the case for the said years for the opinion of this court on three common questions proposed in these applications.
(2.) The Hindu undivided family of Shadiram Ganga Prasad, the respondent assessee, had owned a house property which was used by it for residential purposes. The value of this property was to be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The question which fell for consideration before the Tribunal was as to what should be the "gross maintainable rent". According to the assessee, "gross maintainable rent" should be deemed to be the basis of municipal valuation of the disputed building. This was, however, not accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. In the first appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that it should be the market rate which should be adopted as the "gross maintainable rent". On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the "gross maintainable rent" should be taken to be the "reasonable rent" in accordance with the U. P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947, as the property in question was governed by the provisions of the said Act. It referred to Section 2(f)(1) of the Rent Control Act which provides that "reasonable annual rent" in the case of accommodation constructed before July 1, 1946, means "municipal assessment plus 25% thereon". The Tribunal further noted that the expression "gross maintainable rent" referred to in rule JBB in terms was identical with the definition of "annual value" as defined under Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, and in view thereof, the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 should govern the question which was before the Tribunal as the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act were considered by the Supreme Court in the case mentioned earlier. Holding that view, the Tribunal modified the order of the first appellate authority to the extent that it directed the Wealth-tax Officer to adopt the "gross maintainable rent" on the basis of the "annual reasonable rent" as per the Rent Control Legislation.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned standing counsel urged that the property in question was in the self-occupation of the assessee and the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947, did not apply to the facts of the case. It was further urged that in any case, the Tribunal erred in not realising that the aforesaid legislation relating to the rent control had been repealed by the U. P. Act (XIII of 1972) and the cases for the assessment years 1972-73 onwards were liable to be governed by the repealing Act, assuming that the provisions of the rent control legislation applied to the property in question. Another submission of learned standing counsel was that the municipal valuation of the property was not a safe guide to determine the "gross maintainable rent" as contemplated by Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, in view of the two decisions of this court in P.D. Singhania v. CWT [1979] 118 ITR 376 and in Maharani Raj Laxmi Kumari Devi v. CED [1980] 121 ITR 1002. These decisions, according to learned standing counsel, were wrongly distinguished by the Tribunal.;