JUDGMENT
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as a result of the order dated March 28, 1988, passed by the Tribunal on Application No. 54/(Ind) of 1987 which was preferred in connection with the order dated July 3, 1987, by the Tribunal in E. D. A. No. 6/(Ind) of 1986.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the original assessee who owned the house situated in Sanghi Street, Mhow, is now represented by the accountable person. This accountable person declared the value of the house. The learned Controller of Estate Duty, however, directed the Assistant Controller to value this residential house for the purpose of the estate duty as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The accountable person had declared the value of the house at Rs. 1,50,000 for the purpose of estate duty. On valuation, the value was estimated lower than the value declared. The authorities accepted the lower-value as against the higher value declared by the accountable person and granted benefit in the matter of assessment for the period ending on December 31, 1975. The original assessee died on August 10, 1977. The appeal of the applicant was dismissed on February 22, 1987. The application seeking statement of the case and reference of the proposed questions was also rejected. The applicant, then, filed this application under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act.
3. We have heard Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri B.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the accountable person.
4. In the aforesaid application, the applicant has proposed the undernoted two questions for direction :
” (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that for the purpose of the estate duty assessment of the deceased, who expired on August 10, 1977, the self-occupied property is to be valued as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules which was inserted with effect from April 1, 1977 (1-4-1979 (?)) ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding that notwithstanding the value declared by the accountable person the value as per Rule 1BB be adopted, even when it is lower than the value declared ?”
5. As regards question No. 1, it is conceded in view of Jehangir Mahomedali Chagla v. M.V. Subrahmanian [1985] 155 ITR 637 (Bom) that Rule 1BB, inserted with effect from April 1, 1979, being procedural in nature, was retrospective in operation. In view of this position, question No. 1 noted above is not pressed before us.
6. As regards question No. 2, the position is that the accountable person himself had valued the house at Rs. 1,50,000 for the purpose of estate duty. That being so, the question of law is “whether on application of the aforesaid rule lesser value can be accepted for the purpose of estate duty ?”
7. In view of the aforesaid question, we are satisfied that the question No. 2 does arise in this case for direction of the statement of the case and reference of the question, for our opinion.
8. In the result, we allow this application in part and call upon the Tribunal to state the case and refer question No. 2 for our opinion.
9. We also direct the Tribunal to make an endeavour to comply with the direction of this order within nine months from the date of receipt of the order by it.
10. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
11. We make no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.