1. By this reference application under section 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (' Act '), Commissioner has required Tribunal to refer following question as question of law, which is stated to arise out of order of Tribunal in WT Appeal No. 552 (Delhi) of 1982 relating to assessment year 1976-77: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in directing Wealth-tax Officer to recalculate value of property at ' Marina Hotel ', New Delhi, in accordance with rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules, by holding that though this rule came into existence on 1-4- 1979 yet it had retrospective effect." 2. At time of hearing of reference application by Division Bench, it was found that whereas in large number of cases references have been made on similar question for opinion of Hon'ble High Court, few Benches of Tribunal have taken view that no referable question of law arises on above matter. These orders were mainly in case of D.G. Bhagat [Reference Application Nos. 1123 to 1126 of 1981, 1457 to 1461 (Delhi) of 1982 and 597 to 601 (Delhi) of 1983], in case of Mohd. Haroon Japanwala [Reference Application Nos. 558 and 559 (Delhi) of 1983]. In these reference applications, Tribunal had held that no question of law is required to be referred for opinion of Hon'ble High Court as answer to question is self-evident and academic in view of settled principles of law and decisions of Courts. In view of conflict in such matters, President of Tribunal constituted Special Bench of Tribunal to decide question whether reference should be made to High Court or not. It is in these circumstances that we have heard parties in this matter. 3. On behalf of department, learned departmental representative h s submitted that Tribunal had held that direction given by Commissioner (Appeals) for valuing property under rule 1BB of Wealth- tax Rules, 1957 (' Rules '), was in order, having regard to decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Biju Patnaik v. WTO [1982] 1 SOT 623 (Delhi), where it has been held that rule 1BB was mandatory, procedural and retrospective in operation. He pointed out that in case of Biju Patnaik, when questions of law had been raised, Tribunal was pleased to refer them for opinion of Hon'ble High Court and as order in question also followed decision of Special Bench, reference should be made. It was further contended that whether rule 1BB was purely procedural is itself in dispute as it affects extent of wealth of assessee and, therefore, has bearing on wealth-tax liability. It was also submitted that rule 1BB was given effect from 1-4-1979 and whether this rule could be extended to all other assessments for earlier assessment year, raises question of law. It was pointed out that matter was not concluded by any decision of Supreme Court, which could make matter academic. He referred to order of Tribunal in case of D.G. Bhagat and submitted that main reliance of that Bench was on order of Delhi High Court, dismissing petition under section 27(3) on question of retrospective operation of section 7(4) of Act, but this could not cover this issue as this relates to rule 1BB, which has to be determined after looking into nature of rules and extent to which it affects tax liability of taxpayer. In this connection, he pointed out that in case of Biju Patnaik at page 630, department had contended that rule 1BB was substantive one and Tribunal had considered this question but had not accepted. It was, therefore, contended that referable question of law which has not yet been concluded by decision of Supreme Court arises in this case and should be referred for opinion of Hon'ble High Court. 4. On behalf of assessee, main reliance was placed on orders of Tribunal, where it had been held that though question of law arises yet it need not be referred, as answer is self-evident and academic. He also submitted that rules 1C and 1D of Rules relating to mode of valuation of unquoted shares had been applied by department for even earlier years and such application was upheld by Allahabad High Court. learned counsel also pointed out that property in question in respect of which valuation has to be made was co-owned by assessee and Mohd. Haroon Japanwala. He pointed out that in case of latter, Tribunal has already decided in Reference Application Nos. 558 and 559 (Delhi) of 1983 that no reference is required to be made. He, therefore contended that it would be anomalous if reference is made in present case. 5. We have carefully considered rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute before us that question of law does arise in respect of effect of rule 1BB and only question is whether it should not be referred if answer to same is self-evident and/or of academic value in view of any decision of Supreme Court. 6. Retrospective operation of particular provision of Wealth-tax Rules has to be considered in context of section 46(3) of Act, which is as under: " (3) power to make rules conferred by this section shall include power to give retrospective effect, from date not earlier than date of commencement of this Act, to rules or any of them and, unless contrary is permitted (whether expressly or by necessary implication), no retrospective effect shall be given to any rule so as to prejudicially affect interest of assessees." Moreover, rules framed have to be looked into from point of view of its effect on wealth-tax liability of assessee and that may decide question whether rule. 1BB is purely procedural or is of substantive nature. retrospective operation will depend on this examination of nature of rule. Rule 1BB has not been subject-matter of examination by any Court. There is no decision of Supreme Court on controversy regarding retrospective operation of any other rule framed under section 7. It is true that there are certain High Court decisions but that does not conclude matter. In this connection, it is relevant to quote part of comments from commentary by Sampath Iyengar in Three New Taxes about section 7: "....Actually, however, section 7 in both of its limbs enacts rules of computation, which fix quantum of real taxable value; and wealth-tax payable by assessee will be high or low according as such value is high or low. This, therefore, is taxing provision of statute, substantive law, and portion of judgment quoted not procedural law. . . ." We also note that similar question had arisen before Third Member, as there was difference of opinion between two Members of Delhi Bench and Third Member has decided matter in case of CWT v. Smt. Bimla Vati Mehra [1984] 8 ITD 316. While holding that question of law should be referred to High Court, learned Third Member held as under: " 3. learned counsel for assessee has raised important point on which emphasis has also been placed by learned Judicial Member, namely, that procedural provisions have retrospective effect is well settled proposition and it would be not correct to refer such self-evident question of law. Even so, other question remains as to whether finding of Tribunal that rule 1BB is procedural provision which I find, is question of law to be referred to their Lordships. Apart from fact that learned Accountant Member refers to other decisions where question of law, as suggested in application itself, has been referred to Hon'ble High Court, same question involved in decision in Biju Patnaik's case (Special Bench decision) has been referred to High Court. For these reasons, I agree with learned Accountant Member that question of law has to be referred as to nature of provisions. Since reference is already being made, additional question as to retrospective operation of rule being procedural could also be referred, both these being comprehensively covered by common question as under: ' Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, value of assessee's residential house should be computed for purposes of wealth- tax assessments for assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 in accordance with rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules?' " We agree with above view and we hold that referable question of law arises in this case and should be referred. In our view, decision of Delhi High Court rejecting petition under section 27(3) in case of CWT v. S. Bhagwant Singh (HUF) [WT Case No. 127 (Delhi) of 1979] regarding application of section 7(4) does not conclude issue before us as section 7(4) in terms makes reference of particular year and provides for fixation of value with reference to that year for later years. There is no such provision in present rule and it will depend on determination of question whether rule 1BB was procedural and mandatory, as held by Tribunal in case of Biju Patnaik. In this connection, it will not be out of place to mention that Bombay High Court had held in case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N.C. Upadhya [1980] 124 ITR 799 that rule 1D is directory and not mandatory, in spite of use of word ' shall ' in Rules. We, therefore, proceed to draw up statement of case. 7. assessee is individual having one-fourth share in property known as Marina Hotel. value declared by assessee had not been accepted by WTO, who determined value on basis of valuation report which had fixed value of property at Rs. 56,87,000 and assessee's share at Rs. 14,21,950. assessee filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). It was contended before him that assessee had declared her share at Rs. 2,75,000. It was urged that WTO had wrongly declined to consider assessee's plea regarding application of rule 1BB. Commissioner (Appeals) found that this matter had been considered in case of other co-owner, Shri Mohd. Haroon Japanwala, and in that case also, direction had been given for application of rule 1BB. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside assessment and restored matter to WTO for making de novo assessment in accordance with law. 8. When matter came before Tribunal, it was found that matter was covered by decision of Special Bench in case of Biju Patnaik, where it had been held that rule 1BB was procedural, mandatory and hence retrospective in operation. Tribunal further found that in case of other co-owner, similar directions had been given for applying rule 1BB. Before Tribunal, order of Tribunal in case of Mohd. Haroon Japanwala had been filed. From that order of Tribunal, it appears that contention of department was that property in question was commercial property and not residential property and, hence, rule 1BB did not have any application. Tribunal, while giving direction that application of rule 1BB should be taken into consideration, also held that WTO shall also determine whether property in question is residential property within meaning of rule 1BB and if he is satisfied, he will proceed to value property in accordance with rule. Tribunal followed order of Special Bench as well as order in case of co-owner, Mohd. Haroon Japanwala, and dismissed departmental appeal. orders of WTO, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal are at Annexures ' ', ' B ' and ' C ', respectively, and they from part of statement of case. 9. It is on above facts that question of law as given in paragraph No. 1 has been raised. We find that Tribunal has dismissed departmental appeal and had confirmed order of Commissioner (Appeals). We would reframe question as under: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in upholding consideration of rule 1BB of Wealth-tax Rules in respect of assessment year 1976-77 though rule came into existence on 1-4-1979 on ground that said rule had retrospective effect? " 10. Though notice was served, no suggestions have been received from assessee. departmental representative has also no suggestion to make. So statement is finalised. *** COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH -TAX v. SMT. RAZIA BEGUM