JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. The Department has filed this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, requesting this court to direct the petitioner to state four questions :
"1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was factually and legally correct in directing discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, when the asset to be valued was agricultural lands ?
2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing that the discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to all the assessment years including the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by fixing certain percentage year-wise of compensation which finding is without any reason and relevant material ?
3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally wrong in not specifying in its direction any further receipt of enhanced compensation in future, which as per the Supreme Court's decision in Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED [1980] 122 ITR 21 formed part of compensation awarded by SLAO for valuing the right to receive and whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's direction as such is vague ?
4. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in giving the aforesaid direction in the assessee's case where what was received was compensation and not enhanced compensation which was the case considered by the honourable Supreme Court in Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED [1980] 122 ITR 21 ?"
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we think that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are to be referred. Accordingly, they are directed to be stated. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is explanatory in nature and need not be referred. Question No. 4 is merely argumentative and is really an aspect of question No. 2 and hence need not be referred. Accordingly, these wealth-tax applications are allowed in part. No costs.