JUDGMENT
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules would not apply in a case where the valuation date of the company and the assessee do not coincide and consequently the rule being only directory the proper method to value the shares is the yield method ?”
3. The question of law whether Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules would be directory or mandatory on the facts enumerated is a question of law came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, wherein it was ruled that the aforesaid rule is mandatory. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had held that it was directory.
4. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the question referred for the opinion of this court has to be answered in favour of the Department, that is in the negative. We order accordingly.
