Ajit K.Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1982-83, the following questions of law have been referred to this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the option under the aforesaid section was not irrevocable and could be exercised in each year for a different residential house and not only once in respect of a particular residential house (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exercise fresh option under Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of her Bombay flat for the assessment year 1982-83 even though that option was earlier exercised in respect of her Calcutta flat"
(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessment year involved is 1982-83, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1982. On the above valuation date, the assessee had a residential flat at Bombay, and also 1/4th share in the building at 1, Minto Park, Calcutta. In the assessment year earlier to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee exercised option to freeze the value of her share in the building at 1, Minto Park, Calcutta under Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. However, in the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee wanted to exercise the option under Section 7(4) in respect of the flat at Bombay, instead of her share in the house at Minto Park, Calcutta. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the option under Section 7(4) cannot be changed. He, therefore, did not freeze the value of the flat at Bombay under Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
(3.) The assessee challenged the above order in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contended that the flat at Bombay was being used as a residential house.;