SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this reference under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1978- 79 the following questions of law have been referred to this Court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the r. 1BB of WT Rules, 1957 inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1979, would be applicable to pending matters in respect of an assessment year prior to asst. yr. 1979-80 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the r. 1 BB of WT Rules is mandatory and not directory in nature and, therefore, in upholding the order of the AAC that the house properties in question have to be valued as per r. 1 BB of WT Rules and not on the basis of Valuation Officer's report as done by the WTO ?"
(2.) THE first question is now concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Manjushree Biswas vs. CWT (1980) 14 CTR (Cal) 6 : (1988) 171 ITR 348 (Cal). following the said decision we answer the first question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. So far as the second question is concerned, our attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of CWT vs. India Exchange Traders Association (IT Ref. No. 49 (Cal) of 1987 dt. 21st March, 1991). On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal principles we hold that r. 1 D of the WT rules, 1957 ('the Rules') is mandatory. In our view, the same principle will apply to the interpretation of r. 1 BB of the rules. In other words, r. 1 BB is also mandatory. Following the said decision we answer the second question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Sen, J.: I agree.;