:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO.9 OF 1993 Official Trustee of Trustees of Sir D.M. Petit Baronetcy Trust, P.W.D. Bldg., Veer Nariman Road, Bombay-400 032. ...Applicant. The Commissioner of Wealth tax, Bombay City XI, Bombay. ...Respondent. Mr.J.D. Mistri with Ms. S. Vecdpathak i/by Maneksha & Sethana for the Applicant -Assessee. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan with Mr.A.D.Nagarjun for the Respondent-Revenue. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 16TH MARCH, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The substantial questions of law as referred in this reference are as follows. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Wealth Tax Officer had correctly assessed the applicant under Section 21(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? 2. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Sec. 21(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 did not bring to charge the residue remaining after deducting the value of the beneficiaries interest from the corpus of the trust? :2: 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were applicable to the Official Trustee, as the sole present Trustee of the "Sir D.M. Petit Baronetcy Trust"? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in any event erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 21(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were applicable to the official trustee as the sole present trustee of the "Sir D.M. Petit Baronetcy Trust"? 5. Whether in any event,the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Wealth Tax was leviable only in respect of the value of assets belonging to the applicant and as the residue did not belong to the applicant residue could not be charged in the hand of the applicant? 2. The aforesaid question Nos.1 to 4 have been dealt with and answered by us by a judgment and order passed in Wealth Tax Reference No.18 of 1993. For the reasons set out in the aforesaid judgment, the question Nos. 1 :3: to 4 raised are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. . Question No. 5 is incidental to our answers to Questions 1 to 4 and need not be answered as the same would not survive. 3. The reference stands disposed off with no order as to costs. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)