hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 5 OF WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 5 OF WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 1995 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Applicant The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Applicant The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Applicant Versus Shri.Amarchand Jalan ... Respondent Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Applicant. Mr. A.K. Jasani with Mr. S.S. Shetty for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 15, 2009 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2009 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The tribunal has referred the following questions : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth tax (A) in directing to value the residential house property at Rs.6,13,500/- on the basis of the value shown for A.Y. 1973-74 although the assessee has not exercised his option u/s. 7(4) of the Act, relying on the order dated 6.6.88 when in fact there is no discussion about this issue in the said order? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Rule 1-BB shall apply to all pending assessments as on 1.4.79 and not with effect from assessment year 1979-80 onwards? . In so far as question No. (b) is concerned, the matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in C.W.T. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons. 210 ITR 886. The learned Supreme Court held that the rule being procedural and not substantive is applicable to all proceedings pending on 1.4.1979 when the rule came into force. In the light of the above, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Assesssee and against Revenue. . The question No. (a) is merely consequential. The tax incidence is less than 4 lacs. In the light of that, we find that the question need not be answered and returned unanswered. . Reference disposed of accordingly. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)