JUDGMENT

PATHAK, CJI. :— These appeals by special leave raise the question whether the High Court is right in holding that the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act cannot be invoked by the Revenue on the facts of this case.

2. The respondent is assessed in the status of an individual under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and these appeals relate to the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 for which the corresponding valuation dates are 31 March, 1958, 31 March. 1959 and 31 March, 1960 respectively.

3. The respondent is a share holder in Walchand and Company Private Limited. On each of the three valuation dates she held 140 shares in the Company. For the purpose of assessment under the Wealth Tax Act, the respondent adopted the valuation of the shares at their break-up values with paid up capital and reserves as there was no market quotation for those shares. When making the assessment orders for each of the three assessment years, the Wealth Tax Officer rejected the valuation of the shares as claimed by the respondent, and estimated their value on the basis of capitalisation of profits at six per cent for the assessment year 1960-61 and on the basis of the break-up value with certain modifications for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The respondent appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner determined the value of the shares on the basis of capitalisation of the investment income at six per cent and other income at twelve and half per cent. He allowed the appeals of the respondent in part by separate orders dated 10 November, 1961. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax preferred appeals to the Appellate Tribunal on the question relating to valuation of the shares.

4. The Appellate Tribunal passed a consolidated order on 23 July, 1963, dismissing the appeals for the three assessment years. It observed that the valuation of the shares of the company on the relevant valuation dates determined by two valuers on arbitration in the case of another assessee should be taken as the valuation in the case of the assessee also. The value of the shares, the Appellate Tribunal said, worked out to an amount much less than the valuation determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and therefore, the question of enhancing the values determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not arise. The Appellate Tribunal did not reduce the values determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as no appeals had been filed by the respondent. Meanwhile, however, during the pendency of the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent preferred revision applications on 29 June, 1962 under sub-sec. (1) of S. 25 to the Commissioner of Wealth Tax in respect of the aforesaid assessment years and contended that the valuation of the shares adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unreasonable and excessive and should be duly modified. The Commissioner made an order dated 12 August, 1964 rejecting the revision applications on the ground that they were incompetent in view of Cl. (b) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 25 of the Act. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay and contended that the Commissioner had erred in dismissing the revision applications as incompetent. On 10-11 October, 1966, a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding the revision applications to be competent, and accordingly directed the Commissioner to entertain and dispose of the revision applications in accordance with law. The Commissioner appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court and the appeal was dismissed on 10 January, 1973.

5. The relevant provisions of S. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act read as follows :

"Powers of Commissioner to revise orders of subordinate authorities - The Commissioner may either of his own motion or on application made by an assessee in