CWT vide his applications under s. 27(1) of Wealth-tax, which were received on 22nd June, 1984, requires Tribunal to refer following common questions to Hon'ble High Court for its esteemed opinion: "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and having regard to fact that Tribunal is creation of IT, Act 1961, read with WT Act, 1957, Tribunal has powers in excess of what have been conferred on it by aforesaid statutes including any power to recall its own order? Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and having r e g r d to Hon'ble Orissa High Court decision reported in CIT vs. Jagabandhu Roul (1985) 44 CTR (Ori) 311: (1984) 145 ITR 153 (Ori) Tribunal was justified in law in recalling its entire order being WTA No. 1094 to 1096 (Cal) of 1981, dt. 14th Feb., 1983 in contravention of provisions of s. 24(10) of WT Act, 1957? Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in recalling its entire order being WTA No. 1094 to 1096 (Cal), of 1981 instead of if rectifying mistake of any apparent from record in terms of provisions of s. 35(1)(a) of WT Act?" It is submitted by learned Departmental Representative that above three questions are questions of law arising out of order of Tribunal dt. 22nd Feb., 1984 and, therefore, reference applications may be allowed. We have heard assessee's learned counsel as well who submits that there cannot be question of law in respect of questions as framed by department. assessee's ld. counsel submits respondent's reply contending that department is making attempt to convert what are essentially questions of fact, into questions of law and that in fact, questions formulated do not arise out of order of Tribunal. According to assessee's ld. counsel, above questions cannot be said to have arisen out of order of Tribunal and on that score alone reference applications may be rejected. We have gone through respondent's reply and we have gone through orders of Tribunal as well as order of Tribunal on miscellaneous application preferred by assessee. Briefly speaking, facts of case are that penalty under s. 18(1)(a) of WT Act was imposed by WTO for asst. yrs. 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. According to WTO, there was delay in filing of WT return by assessee for those years. explanation of assessee was not found by WTO to be satisfactory. On reasons recorded by him, he imposed penalty of different amounts for different years under appeal. assessee took up matter before AAC who considered various submissions, different facts of case into consideration. He was of view that WTO has taken strict view of law and that there was no deliberate design by assessee to withhold filing of returns in time. According to AAC, assessee had reasonable cause for which assessee could not file returns in time and that act of assessee was neither deliberate nor contumacious. penalty orders were cancelled. Therefore, Department brought appeals before Tribunal against above order of AAC. Tribunal heard both sides and gone through facts of case and on reasons recorded. It set aside orders and restored back matter to file of AAC for fresh disposal after giving both sides opportunity of being heard. appeal by Revenue being WTA Nos. 1094 (Cal), 1095 (Cal) and 1096 (Cal)/81 were accordingly disposed of by Tribunal by its order dt. 14th Feb., 1983. Thereafter, assessee filed miscellaneous application dt. 18th May, 1983 contending that there were mistakes in order o Tribunal which required to be looked into. it was also submitted that there were certain aspects of matter which were also argued before Tribunal, but which were not considered, while disposing of appeals by Revenue. prayer of assessee was that order of Tribunal may be recalled or amendment as may be made as deemed fit on facts of case. Tribunal heard miscellaneous application of assessee being M.A. No. 65 (Cal) of 1983. Tribunal noted that amongst other things, it was stated in miscellaneous application that at certain part of order, Tribunal pointed out that matter should be restored to file of WTO to examine points in light of decision of Hon'ble High Court on that issue. It was stated that subsequently in operative part of order, Tribunal restored matter to file of AAC. It was also pointed out that Tribunal has not given finding against arguments advanced on behalf of assessee that WTO has duty to ascertain and verify records whether application for extension of time, was for IT or WT returns. It was also stated that delay in filing of WT returns was due to different causes which were in existence. It was urged that Tribunal made general and common observation for all years under consideration it was also pointed out that circular on which assessee placed reliance, had been omitted to be dealt with by Tribunal and, therefore, appeals by assessee should have been straightaway allowed. Tribunal heard both sides and perused its earlier order and other records. After considering facts and circumstances of case and points made in miscellaneous application, Tribunal considered that it was necessary in interest of justice that order of Tribunal should be recalled for fresh hearing of appeals. Accordingly, order of Tribunal dt. 14th March, 1983 was recalled. On above order of Tribunal on miscellaneous application of assessee, CWT has sought for reference in respect of above three questions. It is argued on behalf of Revenue that Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction by recalling its own order, which would tantamount to reviewing of its own earlier order and in such situation, questions of law do arise. It is also argued that in similar circumstances, Hon'ble Orissa High Court in case of Jagabandhu Rouls (1984) 145 ITR p. 153 (SC), has held that Tribunal was not competent to reverse its final decision in exercise of powers under s. 254(2). It is also submitted that Tribunal should have in fact rectified mistakes, if any, apparent from record and was not justified in recalling entire order and in such situation as above questions are to be referred. We have heard both sides at length and we have perused order of Tribunal on appeal and miscellaneous application of assessee as stated earlier. As stated earlier, appeals of Revenue were in connection with cancellation of penalty orders, by AAC. In miscellaneous application assessee has stated that there were certain arguments, facts and materials placed before Tribunal at time of hearing of appeals, which have not been considered by Tribunal. Tribunal was of opinion that in view of points made in miscellaneous application and after considering different facts and circumstances of case it was considered necessary in interest of justice that order of Tribunal should be recalled for fresh hearing. No decision or adjudication was made by Tribunal at that stage. Since no aspect or question has been decided finally by Tribunal, question of making application for reference would not arise at that stage. Similar is view of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (1984) 145 ITR 24 (AP). That apart, in reference applications, it is stated in question No. 2 that having regard to decision in case of Jagabandhu Roul (supra), whether Tribunal was justified in recalling its entire order. But this decision in case of Jagabandhu Roul has not been placed before Tribunal at time of hearing of miscellaneous application. There was no occasion for Tribunal to consider ratio of that decision. That apart, facts of Orissa case were different. Briefly speaking, IAC imposed penalties under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act. Tribunal upheld order of IAC. Thereafter, assessee filed miscellaneous application under s. 254(2) for rectification of mistake on ground that ratio of decision in case of CIT vs. Dhadi Sahu (1976) 105 ITR 56 (Ori), was no applied by Tribunal while disposing appeals. Tribunal rectified mistake by reviewing earlier decision and applied ratio of said decision and held that IAC and no jurisdiction to impose penalty. It was held that Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction when it reviewed its earlier decision. In our opinion, in instant case, there was no question of reviewing its earlier order by Tribunal. As indicated above, no decision or adjudication has been made on issues in dispute. Tribunal in instant case, has recalled its order on reasons recorded by it and by recalling its own order it cannot be said that Tribunal has reviewed own order it cannot be said that Tribunal has reviewed its own order given earlier, as was case of Jagabandhu Roul (supra). recalling of order in present case was necessitated to certain basic issues having been not considered by Tribunal as pointed out in miscellaneous application. In this view of matter, it cannot be said that above three questions are questions of law which require to be referred. In fact, in respondent's reply, it has been claimed that above questions cannot be said to have arisen out of order of Tribunal. Having regard to totality of facts and circumstances of case and points involved in miscellaneous application vis-a-vis, question as set out in para 1 above, we are of opinion that above question as framed are not referable questions. Accordingly, we decline to draw up statement of case for reference under s. 27(1) as applied for. In results, reference applications for all above three years are rejected. *** COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX v. PRADIP KUMAR ROY