JUDGMENT
G.G. Sohani, J.
1. The order in this case shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 213 to 215, 219, 220, 224 to 226, 229 to 242, 244 to 248, all of 1984.
2. These are applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
3. The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows:
4. The assessee-respondent is a beneficiary in two trusts known as Sir Hukumchand Trust and Lady Kanchanbai Trust. The assessee holds life interest in the two trusts and has also the right of a reversioner in the corpus of the trust property. While framing the assessment of the assessee under the Act for the assessment year in question, the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the life interest and reversion to corpus in the trust property in the assessee’s total wealth. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the value of life interest and reversion to corpus in the two trusts were not includible in the net wealth of the assessee in his individual status. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal following a decision of this court in CIT v. Jambukumarsingh Kasliwal (Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 347 of 1976). Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue sought a reference but the applications submitted in that behalf were rejected on the ground that though a question of law did arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal, the reference would be only of academic nature as the matter was covered by a decision of this court. Hence, the Revenue had filed these applications.
5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the decision of this court in CWT v. Jambukumarsingh Kasliwal (M.C.C. No. 347 of 1976), has been reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh [1986] 162 ITR 343. Under the circumstances, the following question of law does arise in this case:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the value of the life interest and interest as reversioner was not includible in the total wealth of the assessee in his individual capacity ?”
6. The applications are accordingly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
