- (1.) THIS reference has been made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, referring the following question for answer in R. A. Nos. 343 and 344/JP/88 (arising out of W. T. A. Nos. 28 and 29/JP/88) pertaining to the assessment year 1982 -83: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in M/s. Krishna Mills Ltd., Beawar, is to be arrived at on yield basis as against the value under Rule 1D of the Wealth -tax Rules ?
(2.) THE assessee held shares in Krishna Mills and claimed that the shares should be valued as per yield method. The Wealth -tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and valued the same as per Rule 1D of the Wealth -tax Rules, 1957. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (for short 'the AAC'), who set aside the order of the Wealth -tax Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee. Appeal was preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal who confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Under such circumstances this reference has been presented. Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not present.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the reference sought to be adjudicated has already been considered by the Supreme Court in case title Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT reported in : [1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC) : AIR 1994 SC 1355. Among other issues the following issue was also considered by the apex court which reads as under (page 12): Whether the Valuation Officer is bound by Rule 1D when valuing the unquoted equity shares of the companies ?;