Per Shri B. S. Ahuja, Judicial Member - WT Appeal Nos. 614 to 624 filed by the assessee and WT Appeal Nos. 703 to 711 filed by the department pertain to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 and 1960-61 to 1974-75 respectively. The main point in these appeals for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 pertains to the valuation of a property situated at 3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, for wealth-tax purposes. At the time of hearing of these appeals before the Division Bench of the Tribunal, an additional ground was raised to the effect that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules should be applied in valuing the said property. The contention was that this rule is a rule relating to procedure and would apply to all pend- ing proceedings, including appeal proceedings and even though the WTO had obtained the valuation of property from the Valuation Officer under section 16A, the provisions of rule 1BB would override such valuation.

Since there was difference of opinion, on the point raised in the appeals on the additional ground of appeal between different Benches of the Tribunal, the case was referred by the President under section 255(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to the Special Bench consisting of three Members for deciding the point at issue.

2. There were five interveners who were represented by the counsel and they were duly heard on all the aspects arising out of the application of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. The assessee was represented by Shri K.K. Jain who led the arguments. The department was ably represented by Shri S.D, Kapila, Senior Departmental Representative.

3. Before we proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side and to give our findings on the same it would be proper to give a few facts which would help in deciding the question at issue and also which would bring into clear focus the effect of rule 1BB which is the subject-matter of decision before us. The assessee had purchased the property at 3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, which abuts on two roads. i.e., Aurangzeb Road and also on 4, Prithvi Raj Road, for a consideration of Rs. 5,69,950 in 1963. The area of the plot is 7,570 sq. yds. The property is self-occupied. It was valued on ‘land and build- ing’ method by the assessee’s value and the assessee declared the value in the returns accordingly. The following chart would give the value as shown by the assessee, value as per the Valuation Officer which has been adopted by the WTO and the value taken by the Commissioner of (Appeals):

4. The additional ground of appeal raised in all these years reads as follows :

"That the hon’ble Tribunal is bound in law, without prejudice to any of grounds of appeal mentioned in the memorandum of appeal and irrespective of the value of the house property in question determined by the Wealth-tax Officer or pleaded for by the assessee, to determine the value by specifically applying the provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax rules as these rules have to be enforced in the appellate proceedings pending before the hon’ble Tribunal."

5. It was urged on behalf of the assessee by Shri K.K. Jain that rule 1BB is a rule of procedure. This rule was enacted with effect from 1-4-1979, the relevant rule having been published in the Gazette of India on 30-3-