R. K. GULATI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected applications under Section 27 (3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Agra, relating to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.

( 2 ) IN the wealth-tax assessments for the aforesaid two years, the assessing officer determined the fair market value of an immovable property described as "dehradun property" at Rs. 7,35,086 as on the two valuation dates relevant for the years in dispute. After the completion of those assessments, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax initiated proceedings under Section 25 (2) of the act, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the wealth-tax assessment orders for the years in dispute may not be cancelled, so as to be made afresh as the "dehradun property" had been undervalued by the assessing officer. It appears that, after the completion of the assessments, the assessing officer learnt that the property was sold by the assessee on August 18, 1983, for a consideration of Rs. 36 lakhs and this information prompted the Commissioner to take proceedings under Section 25 (2) of the Act.

( 3 ) AFTER considering the objections filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax set aside the assessment orders so far as the valuation of the "dehradun property", was concerned for fresh assessment. He held the impugned assessment orders to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the view that in an inflationary economy, when prices of land and house properties are rising constantly, it was necessary for the assessing officer to make full and detailed enquiries before accepting the assessees value report and past figures of valuation of that property. He further held that the valuation adopted by the assessing officer was done in a perfunctory manner without proper scrutiny and application of mind which rendered the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

( 4 ) ON appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by a common order, vacated the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and restored the assessment orders which were set aside by the Commissioner.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the Revenue applied for a reference under Section 27 (1) of the Act which having been refused by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, these two applications have now been moved by the Revenue raising a common question with a prayer that the Income-tax Appellate tribunal be directed to refer the question proposed in these applications for the opinion of this court.

( 6 ) UPON hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the question proposed in these applications is concluded by findings of fact and is not a fit question for reference. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are that the assessment orders are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

( 7 ) IN taking that view, the Tribunal, inter alia, recorded the following findings.

(I) The assessments were made after application of judicious mind and after making due enquiries. (II) The valuation assessed at the assessment stage was in consonance with the past history and the assessed valuation of the same property. (III) The disputed property was a rented one on an annual rent of Rs. 18,000 since the year 1963 and the rental income was assessed year after year in the hands of the assessee to income-tax, the transaction of letting out was genuine and not collusive or sham and the valuation of the property on rent capitalisation basis, there being no change in the rent since the inception of the tenancy, taken by the assessing officer was fair, bona fide and not erroneous. (IV) The valuation dates relevant for the assessment years in question being 10-11-1977 and 31-10-1978, sale of property on August 18, 1983, could not be taken into account for holding that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, since the event of sale never existed on the relevant valuation dates. (v) The expression "record" in Section 25 (2) of the Act cannot mean the record as it stands at the time when the action under that section is taken but it means the record as it stands when the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer. For this finding, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Properties v. ITO [1979] 118 ITR 447.

( 8 ) FROM the findings of the Tribunal, it is evident that it decided two questions, namely, whether the assessment orders were passed without any enquiry and application of mind and, secondly, whether the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the above two counts are essentially findings of fact. It is not the case of the Revenue in the question proposed that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are without any material on record or that those findings are perverse. The contention of standing counsel was that the decision of the Tribunal gives rise to a question of law as it has construed the expression "record" occurring in Section 25 (2) of the Act. The question sought, in our opinion, is academic because the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not based its order entirely on the meaning of the expression "record". The other reasoning on which the decision of the tribunal is based is a factual one and is equally fatal to the case of the Revenue and it cannot succeed unless the other findings are vacated. As stated earlier, the other factual findings have not been challenged by the Revenue in these applications.

( 9 ) FOR what has been stated above, we reject these applications as no statable question of law arises from the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee shall be entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 125.

.