K. B. MENON, J.M.: This appeal by assessee relates to asst. yr. 1975-76, for which valuation date was 31st March, 1975. assets owned by assessee on relevant valuation date included building in Municipal Office Road, Trichur. In WT return filed by assessee on 17th Nov., 1976 property was valued at Rs. 49,750. assessee filed revised return on 25th March, 1980 wherein property was valued at Rs. 1 lakh. This was accepted by WTO when completing assessment on 20th March, 1981. above assessment was taken up in revision by CWT under s. 25 of WT Act, 1957, on ground that order of WTO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. During assessment for subsequent year, namely, 1977-78, it was found that assessee had, on 21st May, 1975, entered into agreement for sale of property for Rs. 1,75,000. In pursuance of same, property was actually sold for same amount on 10th Nov., 1976. As transaction showed that property was agreed to be sold at price of Rs. 1,75,000 within period of one and half month from valuation date i.e., 31st March, 1975, it was felt by CWT that value of property should not have been accepted as Rs. 1 lakh by WTO. It is because of this that CWT considered assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. Before CWT assessee, besides contending that Rs. 1 lakh represented fair market value of property as on relevant valuation date, had also contended that CWT had no jurisdiction to revise assessment order had merged in appellate order dt. 14th Dec., 1981 of CWT(A) in WTA No. 9-SPL/CIT/81-82. This was appeal filed by assessee against assessment order and both sides agreed that he valuation of property in Municipal Officer Road, Trichur, was not subject matter of appeal it was claimed by assessee that in spite of this, there was total merger of assessment order in appellate order and that CWT could not have, therefore, revised assessment order. objection was over-ruled by CWT. He directed that assessment should be enhanced by valuing property at Rs. 1.75 lakhs. present appeal is directed again this order. Grounds 1 to 4 relate to correctness of order of CWT fixing value of property at Rs. 1.75 lakhs. Ground No. 5 is to effect that CWT was incompetent to revise assessment order as same had merged in appellate order. Ground No. 5 which raises question of jurisdiction may be considered first. As already stated, valuation of property in Municipal Office Road, Trichur, was not subject matter of appeal before CWT(A). It was contended by ld. Representative for assessee that irrespective of whether particular issue was subject matter of appeal, there would be total merger of assessment order in appellate order and that CWT cannot, therefore, take up matter revision. In support of contention, assessee relied upon decision of Kerala High Court in Methar & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 247 (Ker). question that came up for consideration in that case was whether ITO, can rectify assessment order under s. 154, after assessment order had been subjected to appeal before AAC. contention of assessee was that assessment order had merged in appellate order and that thereafter ITO could not have rectified assessment order. It was held by High Court that there was merger of assessment order in appellate order and that assessment order could not, therefore, be rectified by ITO. It was contended by Departmental Representative that in case before Kerala High Court matter at issue was validity of rectification order and that decision is not therefore, applicable to present case, where validity of revisional order is at issue. It was also contended by Department that decision by High Court was based on finding that matter which was sought to be rectified had been subject matter if appeal. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on observation of High Court at p. 252 that principal contention before AAC related to correctness of computation. rectification sought to be made in that case was also with regard to computation. But, reading of decision as whole will show that this was only one of circumstances for holding that rectification order was not sustainable. Earlier, circumstances for holding that rectification order was not sustainable. Earlier, Revenue had relied upon decision in Central India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1963) 47 ITR 895 (MP)and contended that rectification will be possible with regard to matter which cold not be regarded as having been subject matter of appeal. decision was distinguished by Kerala High Court on ground that in case of Central India Insurance Co. Ltd. appeal was before Tribunal, that jurisdiction of Tribunal in appeal was limited and that appellate jurisdiction of AAC was much wider. It was thereafter that High Court observed that computation was also subject matter of appeal. ratio of decision of Kerala High Court, therefore, seems to be that in case of appeal before AAC there could be merger even with regard to matter which were not subject matter of appeal before AAC. matter has been considered by Special Bench of Tribunal in Dwarkadas & Co. (P) Ltd. ITO (1982) 13 TTJ 107 (Bom) (SB): (1982) 1 SOT 494 (Bom) (SB). In that case, question for consideration was whether revision under s. 263 of IT Act was possible after assessment order had been subjected to appeal. After discussing case law on subject, Special Bench of Tribunal held that when assessment order had been subject matter of appeal before AAC, there was total merger of assessment order in appellate order in light of fact that AAC had all powers of ITO and could, therefore have enhanced assessee. It is true that Special Bench pointed out that there may be difference with regard to concepts of orders under s. 154 and those under s. 263. But Special Bench held that as far as s. 263 is concerned, no order under section was possible when assessment order had been subject matter of appeal before AAC irrespective of whether issue covered by he order under s. 263 had been subjected to appeal or not. We are aware that many of High Courts have taken different view, namely, that revision or rectification is possible on matters which had not been subjected to appeal. Some of these decisions were relied upon by ld. Departmental Representative. They are Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 385 (MP), Alok Paper Industries vs. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 1064 (MP), H. H. Raja Ajitsingh vs. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 138 (MP), CIT vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 570 (Bom), Smt. Nita Taneja vs. Asstt. CED (1985) 45 CTR (Pat) 247: (1984) 150 ITR 668 (Pat), CIT vs. Bharani Pictures (1980) 14 CTR (Mad) 245: (1981) 129 ITR 244 (Mad). decisions to contrary are J. K. Synthetices Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All) and CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawala (1953) 23 ITR 412 (Bom). decision of Kerala High Court in case of K. C. Methar & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 247 (Ker) (supra) can also be placed under this category. In absence of pronouncement to contrary be Kerala High Court and Supreme Court, we respectfully follow decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Dwarkadas & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) and hold that revision in present case was incompetent. This was also course followed by Tribunal in its order dt. 7th Feb., 1984 in case of Travancore Tea Estate Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 647/Coch/1982). Department had also relied upon decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. vs. IAC (1985) 11 ITD 733 (Pune). contrary view seems to have been taken by this Bench of Tribunal as that Bench subjected to jurisdiction of Bombay High Court and as it would appear that Bombay High Court had taken particular view in case of CIT vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 570 (Bom). As far as this Tribunal is concerned, it is bound to follow decision of Special Bench in absence of decision to contrary by Supreme Court or Kerala High Court. We, therefore, hold that revision was incompetent. In view of above finding, it is not necessary to go into correctness of valuation of property. In result, appeal is allowed and order of CWT is set aside. *** SAJU THOMAS v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER