JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by SOHANI J. -By this reference under section 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred following question of law to this court for its opinion: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in directing Wealth-tax Officer to determine value of residential house in question in accordance with provisions of rule 1 BB of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, even though said rule was enacted on April II, 1979, and assessment was completed after that date?" material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows assessee owns residential house at 21, Race Course Road, Indore. In return of wealth filed by assessee for assessment year 1977-78, assessee declared value of house as Rs. 3,25,000. Later on, revised was filed by assessee whereby value of house was declared as Rs. 58,450 by valuing property according to rule 1 BB of Wealth-tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Wealth-tax Officer did not accept revised valuation and valued property at Rs. 3,25,000. finding of Wealth-tax Officer was upheld in this behalf by Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, Tribunal held that though rule I BB of Rules had come into force with effect from April 1, 1979, rule was procedural and was applicable to pending assessments. Tribunal, therefore, set aside order of assessment with regard to aforesaid property and remanded matter to Wealth-tax Officer directing him that value of house in question be determined in accordance with provisions of rule 1 BB of Rules. Aggrieved by that order, Revenue sought reference and it is at instance of Revenue that aforesaid question of law has been referred by Tribunal to this court for its opinion. Having heard learned counsel for parties, we have come to conclusion that this reference has to be answered in affirmative and against Revenue. It is no doubt true that rule 1 BB of Rules has come into force with effect from April 1, 1979, but as held by Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in CWT v. Vidyavathi Kapur [1984] 150 ITR 319, rule is procedural. No decision to contrary was brought to our notice. We respectfully agree with view taken in Vidyavathi Kapur's case [1984] 150 ITR 319 (Kar). It is not disputed that assessment proceedings were pending when amended rule 1 BB came into force. Tribunal was, therefore, justified in setting aside order passed by Wealth-tax Officer and in remanding case to Wealth-tax Officer to determine value of house in accordance with provisions of rule 1 BB of Rules. Our answer to question referred to this court is, therefore, in affirmative and against Revenue. In circumstances of case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. *** COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX v. LACHHMANDAS BHATIA