JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. The four questions referred in this reference are identical to the questions which were referred in Wealth-tax Reference No. 1007 of 1978 (CWT v. Pushpawati Devi Singhania [1991] 188 ITR 364 disposed of on November 13, 1990). In the said decision, we held that there was no conflict between Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. The same view has been taken in CWT v. Sripat Singhania [1978] 112 ITR 363, a decision of this court.
2. For these reasons, question No. 1 is answered in the following terms :
Since there is no conflict between Section 24(6) and Rule 1D, the question of one overriding the other does not arise.
3. For the same reason, question No. 4 must be answered in the affirmative saying that, even on a reference under Section 24(6), the arbitrators are bound to follow Rule 1D.
4. Question No. 2 is premised on the assumption that the Revenue did not rely upon Rule 1D. In this case too, it does not clearly appear from the record that, after the receipt of the report of the arbitrators with respect to valuation under Section 24(6), any specific objection was raised by the Revenue stating that the valuation made by the arbitrator is opposed to and is not in accordance With Rule 1D. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not open to the Revenue to rely upon Rule 1D now, since it had not put forward any argument based thereon. Question No. 2 is answered accordingly.
5. In view of the answer to question No. 2, question No. 3 does not really arise. Once the record discloses that no objection was raised to the valuation made by the arbitrators on the ground that it was opposed to Rule 1D, the question of the Tribunal not accepting the said report does not arise. Accordingly, we decline to answer question No. 3.
6. Reference ordered accordingly. No costs.