JUDGMENT
S. Ranganathan, J. – These are two applications under s. 27(3) of the WT Act by the CWT. The question are common to the two assessment years involved, namely, 1958-59 and 1964-65. The question relate to the valuation of two house properties in Delhi. The questions of which the reference is sought are as follows :
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Valuation Officer while estimating the market value in accordance with the provisions of r. 1BB when there is nothing in s. 16A(5) for the Valuation Officer to follow r. 1BB(3), the WTO is not bound to take the value as estimated by the Valuation Officer under s. 16A(5) of the WT Act, 1957 ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the valuation of the property be not done on the basis of the actual rent received by the assessed but be done on the basis of the standard rent determinable under the Delhi Rent Control Act/N.D.M.C. Act ?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the market value of the property at 15, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi is not at Rs. 2,00,000 and of the property at Bentendon Road, New Delhi at Rs. 1,70,000 as assessed by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer ?”
We find that, of the three questions, the first question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The second question which pertains to the valuation of the properties in question is settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, the latest of them being the decision in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh & Ors. v. M.C.D. & Ors. (1985) 152 ITR 388 (SC). So far as the third question is concerned, it raises pure question of fact, namely, the multiple which should be applied to the annual value of the property for arriving at the market value. We are, therefore, of opinion that no reference can be called for in this case. The two petitions are, therefore, dismissed. As there is no appearance for the assessed, there will be no order as to costs.