M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of the above numbered WT reference applications. WT Ref. Appln. No. 36 of 1990 is for the asst. year 1968 -69 by the Revenue in the case of L. K. Kasliwal, partner of Gem Palace, M. I. Road, Jaipur. For the same assessment year, WT Ref. Appln. No. 44 of 1990 is in respect of one Roshanlal, another partner of the said firm. WT Ref. Appln. No. 37 of 1990 is for the asst. year 1969 -70 in respect of L. K. Kasliwal, one of the partners of Gem Palace, M. I. Road, Jaipur. WT Ref. Appln. No. 4 of 1991 is for the same assessment year in the case of Roshanlal Kasliwal for the same firm. WT Ref. Appln. No. 42 of 1990 is for the asst. year 1970 -71 in the case of Roshanlal Kasliwal. WT Ref. Appln. No. 43 of 1990 is for the asst. year 1971 -72 and WT Ref. Appln. No. 41 of 1990 is for the asst. year 1972 -73 in the case of Roshanlal Kasliwal, partner of the same firm. It will, therefore, be clear that all the above wealth -tax reference applications, though for different years and arising out of different orders made by the Tribunal, Jaipur, are by one or the other of the partners of Gem Palace, M. 1. Road, Jaipur. It will, therefore, be clear that each of the assessees was also a partner of Mani Ram and Sons. Besides the above -named assessees, there was one more partner, Smt. Ratan Prabha.
(2.) ORIGINAL assessments in the case of the above -named assessees as well as Ratan Prabha were made under S. 16 of the WT Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). In the aforesaid assessments, the assessees' declared version of the value of interest in the firm of Mani Ram and Sons, Jaipur, as the closing balance had come to be accepted. The WTO, the assessing authority, noticing that the said firm owned a cinema known as Gem Cinema, Jaipur, the market value of which was substantially higher than the book value and further that the assessee had not offered her share as statutorily stipulated under S. 7(2)(a) of the WT Act r/w rr. 2, 2A and 2E(2) of the WT Rules, 1957 (for short, "the Rules"), took recourse to the provisions of S. 17 of the WT Act and framed reassessments adding the difference in value in the share of the assessee on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report who determined the market value of Gem Cinema. It appears that the CWT, in exercise of his powers under S. 25 of the WT Act, has cancelled the original order of assessment and directed the assessing authority (WTO) to make a fresh assessment. For the asst. year 1968 -69, the WTO, on 19th March, 1984, made a fresh assessment order and basing on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, so far as the market value of Gem Palace, a picture house is concerned, included the assessee's share in his total wealth. It may also be stated that the WTO, under his separate order for the asst. year 1969 -70, also included the share of the assessee in Gem Palace and framed the assessment. Two appeals were filed bearing Appeals Nos. 4 of 1985 and 7 of 1985, in the office of the CIT (A) and the CWT, under a common order dt. 9th April, 1987, disposed of both the appeals and partly allowed the appeals placing reliance on the earlier appellate orders in the case of Ratan Prabha and in the case of L. K. Kasliwal for the asst. yr. 1977 -78. The CWT directed the WTO to work out the value of the share of L. K. Kasliwal in Gem Cinema strictly in accordance with and on the basis of the order of the CIT (A) in his own case for the asst. yrs. 1977 -78, 1978 -79, 1979 -80 and to give resultant reliefs to him for the aforesaid assessment years. The Revenue filed two appeals to the Tribunal being Appeals Nos. TA 289 and 290/JP of 1987, for the asst. yrs. 1968 -69 and 1969 -70. The assessee also filed cross -objections and the Tribunal, under its order dt. 31st Dec., 1987, set aside the order of the AAC and restored the matter to him for fresh orders in line with those in Smt. Ratan Prabha's case and other related cases. The Tribunal was of the opinion that it was obligatory on the part of the AAC to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as provided under S. 23(3A) of the WT Act. But, along with the two appeals of the Revenue, the Tribunal failed to decide the cross -objections filed by L. K. Kasliwal and the cross -objections were taken up by the Tribunal later and, under its order dt. 25th March, 1988, the Tribunal was of the opinion that, as the appeals of the Revenue have been accepted and the case has been remitted to the AAC, the cross -objections should also be allowed and ordered that : "Thus, consistent with the order passed in appeals setting aside the order of the AAC, these cross - objections are also allowed for statistical purpose and the AAC is directed to examine the issue raised by the assessee in accordance with law after taking into account our observations made above." It may be stated that, in the cross -objections, the main ground which was raised on behalf of the assessee was that initiation of the proceedings under S. 7(1)(a) of the WT Act was bad in law. Tile Revenue filed an application for reference seeking that the following question may be referred for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in entertaining the assessee's objection against the initiation of proceedings under S. 17(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957, and directing the AAC to examine the issue afresh - The Tribunal, under its order dt. 11th April, 1989, took a view that it only restored the matter to the AAC to dispose of the grounds regarding the challenge before the AAC. In the words of the Tribunal : "When the matter was only restored back mainly on the basis that the ground raised before the AAC has not been disposed of, that should be examined and disposed of as per law. When no definite finding was given, no referable question of law does arise. Merely by restoring the matter back with the direction to dispose of the ground which was left by the AAC is only a question of fact and no interpretation of law is involved. Accordingly, we decline to refer the question as set out in para 1 for the opinion or the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court." In each of the WT Ref. Appln. No. 44 of 1990, for the asst. year 1968 -69, WT Ref. Appln. No. 4 of 1991, for the asst. year 1969 -70, WT Ref. Appln. No. 42 of 1990, for the asst. year 1970 -71, WT Ref. Appln. No. 43 of 1990, for the asst. year 1971 -72 and WT Ref. Appln. No. 41 of 1990, for the asst. yr. 1972 -73, the assessee was Roshanlal Kasliwal and, in each of the aforesaid assessment years, after the original assessment was made, the CIT, under his powers under the WT Act, cancelled the order and ordered the WTO to make a fresh assessment order. The WTO made fresh assessment orders and, placing reliance on the Departmental Valuation Officer's report in the case of Ratan Prabha, came to the conclusion that there was undervaluation so far as the market value of Gem Cinema is concerned and, consequently, he added the assessee's share to his total wealth and framed the assessment accordingly. It appears that four appeals were filed against the four orders and each of the appeals was disposed of by the AAC under his order dt. 9th April, 1987. The said CWT partly allowed the appeals but, so far as initiation of action under S. 17(1)(a) of the WT Act is concerned, in respect of which grounds Nos. 1 and 2 as common grounds in all the appeals were raised, simply referred to the raising of the grounds and said that the appellant's objection regarding jurisdiction is without any basis. Having remanded the case, he directed the WTO to work out the value of the assessee's interest in Gem Cinema in accordance with and on the basis of the order of the CIT (A) in the assessee's own case for the asst. yrs. 1977 -78, 1978 -79 and 1979 - 80, and to give relief to the assessee for the relevant years in question. The Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of all the appeals by its order dt. 31st Dec., 1987, and the Tribunal set aside the order of the AAC and restored the matter for fresh orders in line with Ratan Prabha's case and other related cases. But the cross -objections filed by the assessee which should have been decided by the common order were not decided and the learned Tribunal took up the cross -objections and decided them under his order dt. 25th March, 1988, in the case of L. K. Kasliwal and referred the matter back to the AAC. Reference applications were filed and the learned Tribunal dismissed the same.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue as well as learned counsel for the assessees. The main contention of learned counsel for the assessees is that in the case of Ratan Prabha, the Tribunal had taken a decision that the initiation of proceedings under S. 17(1)(a) of the WT Act was valid and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have taken a contrary view and could not have remanded the case on this point to the AAC and, according to learned counsel for the Revenue, it is a question of law whether the Tribunal was bound to follow its earlier decision rendered in the case of Ratan Prabha, one of the partners of Mani Ram & Sons. Learned counsel for the assessees, on the other hand, contends that the Tribunal has only remanded the case to the AAC to whom the case was already remanded on appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue and the WTO or, for that matter, the AAC, did not consider the question whether the initiation of proceedings under S. 17(1) (a) of the WT Act was legal or not. Therefore, no question of law arises for opinion by this Court. It is further contended by learned counsel for the assessees that, when the case has been remanded, it is all the more a ground to call for a reference and it is for the AAC to decide whether the initiation of proceedings under S. 7(1)(a) of the WT Act was valid or not.;