The court emphasized the principle that no useful purpose would be served in multiplying references on the same questions of law that were already considered and decided in previous cases.

1. This is a reference application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act arising out of the following facts:

2. The respondent, Umraomal Dhadda, is a wealth-tax assessee and deals in precious and semi-precious stones. The assessee filed his return for the assessment year 1975-76 declaring his wealth to the tune of Rs. 1,52,330. The assessee declared a profit of 20% in his trading account. The Wealth-tax Officer made the assessment relying upon rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, vide annexure-1, dated December 27, 1979, but did not grant him exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee preferred an appeal and the first appellate court, vide annexure 2, dated October 21, 1980, accepted both the contentions of the assessee regarding non-applicability of rule 2B(2) and also with regard to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Department preferred a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein there was a difference of opinion between the two members and the point of difference was referred to the third member. The Tribunal, while upholding the order of the first appellate authority, rejected the second appeal filed by the Department, vide annexure dated September 29, 1987. The Department, thereafter, submitted a reference application before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act for making reference of the questions to the High Court. The said reference application was also dismissed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated June 10, 1988, and, hence, the Department has filed the present application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act for referring the following questions :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gross profit rate taken in the case of the firm constitutes adequate material to come to the conclusion that the market value of the closing stock of the firm exceeds the cost price as adopted by the firm by more than 20% and, whether, on that basis, rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, could be invoked ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of rule 2B(2) were not applicable to the assessee's case and, consequently, in deleting the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer ?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of investment in the firm, M/s. Sardarmal Umraomal, Jaipur ?"

3. Notice was issued and arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties.

4. Mr. V. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, has submitted that these questions arose in other cases and have Already been referred by this court, on an application under section 27(3) of the Act, directing the Tribunal to refer these questions to this court for its decision. In this connection, he has placed reliance on CWT v. Smt. Jatan Devi (D. B. Wealth- tax Reference No. 88 of 1988 ), CWT v. V. K. Kasliwal (D. B. Wealth-tax Reference No. 86 of 1988 ) and CWT v. Vimal Kumar Surana (D. B. Wealth- tax Reference Application No.131 of 1988), decided on July 6,1989-See 1990 (182) ITR 470 .

5. On the other hand, Mr. N. M. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that, in so far as the question with regard to the applicability of rule 2B(2) of the Rules is concerned, it stands decided by this court in CWT v. Moti Chand Daga 1988 (174) ITR 379 (Raj) and therefore, the said question does not need further consideration by this court. Moreover, the total tax effect in the present case would hardly be a sum of Rs. 1,000 only and, therefore, also, no reference need be made as was done in CWT v. Umrao Mal Dhadda 1990 (183) ITR 637 (Raj) (D. B. Wealth- tax Reference No. 138 of 1988, decided on July 6, 1989 ), CWT v. Ugar Singh 1990 (184) ITR 255 (Raj) (D. B. Wealth-tax Refere