The applicability of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, to the computation of the value of shares under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was a debatable issue which could not be brought within the purview of Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Ajit K. Sengupta, J.

1. IN this reference under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following question of law has been referred to this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the records within the meaning of Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953?"

2. SHORTLY stated, the facts are that, in the original assessment, the Controller of Estate Duty took the value of the shares of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. at Rs. 101.61 per share. Subsequently, he issued a notice under Section 61 to modify the assessment on the ground that the break-up value has been wrongly computed at Rs. 101.61 and that the same should have been valued at Rs. 162.27 as per the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The respondent objected to the rectification proceedings. It was contended that the valuation of the shares shown in the original estate duty assessment was based on the valuation made by M/s. Lovelock and Lewes, that the said valuation was accepted by the Assistant Controller and that the present rectification proceedings are initiated only due to change of opinion with regard to the valuation of shares. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not accept the submissions. He held that there was a mistake apparent from the records. According to the balance-sheet as on December 51, 1967, of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd., the break-up value of the shares as per the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, came to Rs. 162.27 per share and not Rs. 101.62 per share. Accordingly, he rectified the estate duty assessment order. He also rectified the excess relief granted under Section 50.

Against the order of the Assistant Controller made under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Controller by the accountable person. The Appellate Controller held that even if there was a mistake in valuation, it cannot be said that such mistake was apparent from the records as, conceivably, there might be more than one opinion on the applicability of the Wealth tax Rules, 1957, to the valuation of shares under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Thus, he cancelled the order under Section 61 to the extent it related to the valuation of the shares of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. He, however, upheld the order to the extent the rectification order related to the withdrawal of relief under Section 50.

3. THE Department came up in appeal before the Tribunal and took up an additional ground of appeal that no appeal lay against an order under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and that the Appellate Controller was wrong in entertaining the appeal. The departmental representative firstly submitted that no appeal lay to the Appellate Controller against an order made under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, that the appeal preferred before the Appellate Controller was incompetent and that the order of the Appellate Controller was invalid and should accordingly be cancelled. He further submitted that the mistake was apparent from the records and that the provisions of Section 61 were clearly applicable. He submitted that the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, were applicable to the estate duty proceedings also for the purpose of valuing the shares. Thus, there was a clear mistake in the original estate duty assessment order in determining the value of the shares.

4. ON behalf of the respondent, it was urged that though the order was under Section 61, still it was an appealable order as the accountable person was objecting to the valuation made by the Controller, that the provisions of Section 62(1)(a)(i) would be applicable and that, under that provision, an appeal was entertainable in respect of the valuation made. Thus, he submitted that since the appeal related to valuation, the Appellate Controller was justified in entertaining the appeal and that his order was a valid order. Coming to the Department's contentions rela