V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order in respect of the assessment years 1971 -72 to 1975 -76 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the lower authorities and restoring the matter regarding valuation of self -occupied property to the Wealth -tax Officer with the direction to reframe the assessment in accordance with law and as per the decision of the Special Bench of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', dated February 17, 1981, in Wealth -tax Applications Nos. 614 to 624/(Delhi) of 1979 and Wealth -tax Applications Nos. 703 to 717/(Delhi) of 1979 in the case of Shri Biju Patnaik, New Delhi ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 1BB of the Wealth -tax Rules, 1957, is procedural in nature and retrospective in operation and, therefore, the same is applicable in the year under consideration ?'
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of its net wealth on the basis of the report of the registered valuer but the Wealth -tax Officer referred the matter for valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the Wealth -tax Act and framed the assessments in conformity with the report of the Valuation Officer. The assessed wealth included immovable property which was self -occupied. In the self -occupied property the area of 901 sq, metres was under self -occupation and 319 sq. metres was let out. While valuing the immovable property which was partly under self -occupation, the Valuation Officer and the Wealth -tax Officer did not give due consideration to the statutory Rule 1BB of the Wealth -tax Rules. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and restored the matter back to the file of the Wealth -tax Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law and in tune with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Delhi 'A', referred to above. It was also observed that valuation in respect of property other than self -occupied property will also be subject to valuation afresh and the assessee will be entitled to place any evidence on the file of the Wealth -tax Officer, if he so desires. The Special Bench of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik v. WTO was seized of the matter with regard to the interpretation of Rule 1BB of the Wealth -tax Rules. In that case, the report of the Valuation Officer was dated January 17, 1977, on a reference made by the Wealth -tax Officer on September 19, 1975. The assessments were completed by the Wealth -tax Officer on March 30, 1979, and on that, date Rule 1BB was not enacted. Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. CWT [19(57] 63 ITR 470 wherein it was observed that Section 7 falls in Chapter II which deals with the charge of wealth -tax and assets subject to such charge ; it is intended to provide a machinery for the determination of the value of assets. After taking into consideration the various decisions, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the provisions of Rule 1BB are procedural in nature and, therefore, retrospective and will be applicable to the assessments which are pending before the Wealth -tax Officer and before the appellate authorities.
(3.) THE Allahabad High Court in CWT v. Laxmipat Singhania : [1978]111ITR272(All) while interpreting the provisions of rules 1C and 1D, has held that those rules prescribed the method of valuation of unquoted preference shares and unquoted equity shares respectively. The criteria prescribed by the rules was held applicable to pending assessments of the assessee even though such assessments related to assessment years prior to the date of the coming into force of those rules and the relevant valuation dates were also prior to that date. Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, : AIR1962SC1052 and at page 1063, it was observed as under : 'In deciding the question as to whether a rule about irrebuttable presumption is a rule of evidence or not, it seems to us that the proper approach to adopt would be to consider whether fact A from the proof of which a presumption is required to be drawn about the existence of fact B, is inherently relevant in the matter of proving fact B and has inherently any probative or persuasive value in that behalf or not. If fact A is inherently relevant in proving the existence of fact B and to any rational mind it would bear a probative or persuasive value in the matter of proving the existence of fact B, then a rule prescribing either a rebut -table presumption or an irrebuttable presumption in that behalf would be a rule of evidence. On the other hand, if fact A is inherently not relevant in proving the existence of fact B or has no probative value in that behalf and yet a rule is made prescribing for a rebuttable or an irrebuttablepresumption in that connection, that rule would be a rule of substantive law and not a rule of evidence.' ;