1. The High Court (see [1995] 216 ITR 658) declined to call for a reference at the behest of the Revenue of the following question (page 659) :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, including, in particular, the fact that part of the official residence of the ex-Ruler of Ratlam, who is the assessee respondent, stood let out, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of the value of the said property in its entirety under Section 5(l)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?"
2. It did so for the reason that, in its view, no question of law was raised. It appears, in fact, that the question was not referred because the answer was indicated by an earlier judgment of the High Court.
3. A question of law does clearly arise. In fact, it is the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that the answer to it is furnished by the judgment of this court in Mohammad Ali Klian v. CUT [1997] 224 ITR 672.
4. We decline to decide the question here, particularly, since the respondent has not chosen to put in an appearance.
5. We allow the appeals, set side the order under challenge and direct the Tribunal to refer to the High Court the question aforesaid, after drawing up a statement of case.
6. No order as to costs.