1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2000 The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Bombay City-IX, Bombay .. Petitioner. V/s. Master Advait Chaturvedi .. Respondent. Mr.R.V. Desai, senior counsel with Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2005. DATED : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2005. DATED : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Perused order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 30, 1990, wherein para 3 reads as under : "In the present application it is made out that the benefit of the second proviso to rule 3 can be given only in a case where an assessee has got a separate house and not when his share is only one-fourth. This argument does not arise from the order of the Tribunal as there is not finding in the assessment order as to the anture of the property involved. In the circumstances, on the plain language of Rule 3 of the Income tax Rules, we are of the view that the answer to the question proposed by the revenue is self-evident and we hold that no referable 2 question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal." 2. We do not find any substantial question of law in this application. The application stands dismissed. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN. J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)