KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THE CWT, Jaipur, has filed this application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for giving a direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to draw up the statement of the case and refer the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment has not been validly reopened and in setting aside the order of the AAC and cancelling the assessment made under s. 17 of the WT Act, 1957?"
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this application are that the assessees were partners in the firm of new Majestic Talkies, Ajmer. The WTO issued a notice under the WT Act and mentioned in his order that during the proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77, a reference was made to the valuation cell in January, 1977, for the purpose of valuation of immovable properties of the firm, M/s New Majestic Talkies, The report was received in December, 1978. This report assessed the value of the assets of the firm at Rs. 9,92,000 as against the balancesheet value of the properties, namely, Rs. 3,85, 522. On this basis, the WTO came to the conclusion that the wealth had been under-assessed due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and correct particulars of wealth. An argument was raised before the Tribunal that reference could be made to the valuation cell when the proceedings were actually pending and the WTO had no power to follow a reverse process, namely, the reference to the valuation cell being followed by the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the above submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. It was observed by the Tribunal that it was evident from the facts stated above that no proceedings were pending before the WTO when it made a reference for the purpose of making an assessment. Sec. 16A permitted the WTO to make a reference for the purpose of making an assessment. The Tribunal placed reliance on decision of the Calcutta High Court in Satyendra Chunder Ghose vs. WTO (1980) 126 ITR 102 (Cal) and held that the assessment had not been validly reopened and completed. An application submitted under sub-s. (1) of s. 27 of the Act for making a reference to this Honourable Court was also dismissed and reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Brig. B. Lall vs. WTO (1981) 127 ITR 308 (Raj). We have heard Mr. Surolia for the Department. In our view, no mistake has been committed by the Tribunal in taking the aforesaid view. The view taken by the Tribunal is based on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and also of this Court. In view of the above circumstances, we find no force in this application and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.;