JUDGMENT
S.S. Sharma J.
1. This is an application under Section 64(3) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ” the Act “), requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question or such questions of law as the court may deem fit:
” Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty was accepted by the accountable person and no appeal was filed by her, the Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing investigation into the valuation of land situated to the east of M. B. Garage by entertaining accountable person’s
plea that the value of the land was less than the value returned by her at Rs. 35,600 thereby giving scope for relief to the respondent-accountable persons in the appeal filed by the department ? ”
2. Lt. Col. B. A. Deodhar expired on October 16, 1967. Respondent, Smt. Leelabai Deodhar, is the accountable person for his estate. The respondent, on February 6, 1969, filed a return of the estate left behind by the deceased. The dispute in the present proceedings relates only to a certain piece of land situated to the east of M. B. Garage at Indore and owned by the deceased. The accountable person had valued it at Rs. 35,600 but the Asst. Controller relied on the value adopted in the W.T. assessment at Rs. 92,000 and, accordingly, this item of property was valued at Rs. 92,000. The accountable person preferred an appeal against this assessment to the Appellate Controller, Indore, who by his order dated November 29, 1977, reduced the value of this property to Rs. 35,600. Aggrieved by this, the department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal challenging the reduction of the value of this land. In that appeal disputes relating to the valuation of some other lands were also raised but we are concerned only with the land which has been described all through as situated to the east of M. B. Garage. It appears that the assessee had also filed cross-objection.
3. The Tribunal in para. 2 of its order observed as follows :
” Before us, the department has contended that the full value of Rs. 92,000 should be placed on this property whereas the assessee’s contention is that the value should be put at nil. We have carefully considered both these contentions and, in our opinion, the matter has not been decided from a proper angle. Two crucial questions would arise for determining the correct value of this property. The first is whether the possession of the 3rd party over the disputed land was that of trespasser. If it was so, then obviously there was no question of reversionary interest in this land, as the assessee’s valuer has shown in para. 5.4 of his report. Either the trespasser could be straightway thrown out in such cases if the value of the land would be the full market value less any expenses which may have to be necessarily incurred in the litigation. In the alternative, if it was found that the possession of the trespasser had not matured into ownership under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, the value obviously would be nil. The dispute has not been considered by any of the authorities below from this angle. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to some entries in the Municipal records, copy whereof had been produced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to show that land was mentioned as the ownership of some third portion during the years 1951 to 1952 and 1953, and according to him the adverse possession of that party continued right till the death of the deceased and
continues still today so that the deceased had absolutely lost the right in the land since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not given any finding in respect of this matter. We are not sure that the entry in question relates to this very property. We, therefore, cannot say anything with certainty but, in any case, the value arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not in accordance with law. The matter shall be investigated afresh in the light of our aforesaid observations. ”
4. Department’s appeal was partly accepted and there being no provision for the filing of a cross-objection under the Act, the same was dismissed as incompetent. Since the authority who was to investigate the matter was omitted, the Tribunal by its rectification order dated May 28, 1979, specified that the investigation shall be done by the Appellate Controller.
5. Department’s application under Section 64(1) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. So far as the first question was concerned, the Tribunal observed that the authority having been specified in the. rectification order no reference about this question is called for. With regard to the other question, for which the present application has been filed before us, the Tribunal observed that it is purely a hypothetical question. The application was accordingly dismissed. The grievance of the learned counsel for the department was that the accountable person having accepted the valuation determined by the Appellate Controller, inasmuch as no appeal in that behalf was filed, the remand may have the effect of a valuation lower than that now being determined. The further investigation as directed by the Tribunal was felt necessary because of the reasons mentioned in the order. In Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC), their Lordships had construed the meaning of the words ” pass such order as the Tribunal thinks fit” in Section 33(4) of the I.T. Act. In that context, their Lordships held that the Tribunal has authority under Section 33 of the Act to direct the AAC or the ITO to hold a further inquiry and dispose of the case on the basis of such an inquiry. On that reasoning, it can safely be concluded that under Section 63(4) the Tribunal had the power to direct a further investigation. As a matter of fact, this power of the Tribunal was not even challenged.
6. The Tribunal while directing further investigation has given out the principles which have to be applied and considered vis-a-vis the facts for determining the valuation. The Tribunal had the power to remand the case for the reasons mentioned in the order. At this stage, the fear of the department that as a result of the further investigation a valuation lesser than Rs. 35,600 may be determined is clearly hypothetical.
7. In our opinion, therefore, no such question of law at this stage arises from the Tribunal’s order.
8. The application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs which shall be borne by the parties as incurred.