V. DONGZATHANG, A. M.: These appeals of assessee and WTO are directed against order of AAC. W.T.A. Nos. 1741 & 1742 (Del) 83 In revenue s appeals for asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 common issue is regarding direction of AAC to WTO to value property in accordance with r. 1BB of WT Rules. assessee owns house property which was valued by WTO on rent yield method by applying multiple of 12. In doing so he arrived at value of property at Rs. 3,14,563 for both years. Aggrieved by said valuation assessee took up matter in appeal before AAC who directed WTO to work out value of property in question on basis of r. 1BB for both years and case value declared by assessee is more than that worked out under r. 1BB, then value declared by assessee should be accepted. department is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. After hearing both parties we see no reason to interfere with order of AAC. Similar issue came up before Special Bench of Tribunal in case of WTO vs. Biju Patnaik (1981) 12 TTJ 25 (Del) (SB). For reasons fully discussed by Special Bench of Tribunal in that case with which we agree, we uphold order of AAC and dismiss appeals of Revenue. W.T.A. No. 1743 (Del) 83 With regard to assessee s appeal relevant for asst. yr. 1976-77 following grounds have been raised: "1. That learned AAC of WT. New Delhi grossly erred in considering assessment form delivered to assessee to be assessment order under s. 16(2). It was mandatory upon WTO to pass asst. order under s. 16(1) and this having not been done and there being no assessment order in existence case was now time barred and assessee was entitled to refund of wealth- tax paid by her: that learned AAC of wealth-tax, New Delhi erred in law and facts of case in directing WTO to pass fresh order after considering revised return. assessment order on basis of original return was nullity as return had been superseded by revised return. As result assessment ought to have been annulled and this being position AAC of wealth-tax could not have given any directions to pass assessment order on basis of revised return as case was barred by time. This being position wealth-tax deposited by assessee is refundable to her. That appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, supplement or raise fresh grounds of appeal if so considered expedient and advisable at time of hearing of appeal". admitted facts are that assessee filed return of wealth for asst. yr. 1976-77 on 1st July, 1976. Later on she filed revised return on 23rd July, 1979. WTO completed assessment vide his order dt. 31st March, 1981. assessee, however, did not accept genuineness of assessment made on 31st March, 1981 and wanted to claim refund of self assessment tax already deposited. WTO, however, informed assessee that assessment was actually completed on 31st March, 1981 and necessary orders and notices were sent by ordinary post. Aggrieved by said order assessee took up matter in appeal before AAC and claimed refund of self assessment tax already deposited as there was no valid assessment in this regard. AAC partially accepted claim of assessee as follow: "3.1. I have considered submission of appellant and find them without any force. In this connection, it will not be out of place to mention here that appellant had already taken this plea before CIT, Delhi-VI, New Delhi and appellant was informed by CIT that assessment in appellant s was completed on 31st March, 1981 and sent by ordinary post to her as per general practice adopted in this office and she was requested to obtain duplicate copy of order from concerned ITO. It is only that appellant has not received order, suspicion has arisen to her mind that assessment has not been completed in her case. As per provision of sec. 17A, time limit for completion of assessment and re-assessment had been fixed but there is no mention that assessee should receive order within that period. It only contemplates period during which assessment could be completed. Since in this case, assessment has been completed within time, i.e. on 31st March, 1981 appellant s plea that assessment has not been completed within time and is time-barred is without any basis and is accordingly rejected. WTO has completed assessment on basis of original return and has not considered revised return also does not hold assessment completed by him as invalid as assessment has been completed within time on basis of original return. However, WTO has committed mistake by not considering revised return filed by appellant. In these circumstances, order passed by him on basis of original return cannot be sustained and his order is accordingly set-aside with direction that he should pass fresh order after considering revised return." assessee is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us raising above grounds. After hearing both parties at length we are of view that limited issue before us is confined to validity of assessment made on 31st March, 1981 on original return filed by assessee on 1st July, 1976. answer to above issue is self evident. Since parties did not dispute filing of revised return by assessee on 23rd July, 1979, assessment order made on basis of original return filed on 1st July, 1976 is definitely invalid and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly cancelled. With regard to direction of AAC to pass fresh order after considering revised return, same direction cannot be sustained. It is for revenue, to take action on revised return filed by assessee on 23rd July, 1979 and no special direction is necessary. Since issue before us is limited to validity of order dt. 31st March, 1981 scope of taking into account revised return filed on 23rd July, 1979 does not arise and we shall refrain from passing any direction or order in regard to revised return and action to be taken by revenue Authorities. With regard to claim of refund of self-assessment tax, also we consider it premature to consider such claim as fate of revised return filed on 23rd July, 1979 is yet to be decided. We hold accordingly and modify directions of AAC to above extent. appeal of assessee shall be treated as partly allowed. *** MRS. SANTOSH VASUDEVA v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER