SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this reference under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 the following questions of law have been referred to this Court : For asst. yr. 1983-84 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the CWT(A) directing the WTO to refer the valuation of shares of Bengal Rubber Co. Ltd., Hindustan Discounting Co. Ltd., and Birla Bombay (P) Ltd. to the Departmental Valuation Officer under S. 16A of the WT Act, 1957?" For asst. yr. 1984-85 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the CWT(A) directing the WTO to refer the valuation of shares of Bengal Rubber Co. Ltd., Hindustan Discounting Co. Ltd. and Birla Bombay (P) Ltd. to the Departmental Valuation Officer under S. 16A of the WT Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 is directory and in that view of the matter in directing the WTO to re-determine the valuation of shares of Birla Bros. (P) Ltd. in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Jalan 1972 CTR (SC) 395 (1972) 86 ITR 621 (SC) ?"
(2.) IT is not disputed that Bengal Rubber Co. Ltd. and Hindustan Discounting Co. Ltd. are investment companies to which r. 1D does not apply but Birla Bombay (P) Ltd. is a non-investment company and r. 1D of the Rules would apply to this case. The WTO followed the Circular of the Board in making the assessment of the investment companies and adopted the break-up method under r. 1D so far as the non-investment company is concerned. The CWT(A), however, directed that it was incumbent upon the WTO to have referred the matter of valuation of shares to the Departmental Valuation Officer inasmuch as there was a difference in the valuation having regard to the method adopted by the WTO and the method adopted by the registered Valuer. The CWT(A), therefore, restored the issue relating to the valuation of shares of companies to the file of the WTO with direction to refer the valuation of shares to the Departmental Valuation Officer and thereafter reframe the assessments in accordance with the valuation as may be determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. This order was upheld by the Tribunal. On these facts the aforesaid questions have been referred. We may add that there is another company involved in the asst. yr. 1984-85 which is also a non-investment company to which r. 1D would apply, that is, Birla Bors. (P) Ltd.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the questions in this reference are more or less concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. India Exchange Traders Association [IT Ref. No. 149 of 1987, dt. 21st March, 1991].;