Judgment :- SETHURAMAN J. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax wants the following questions to be directed for reference "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no provision in the Wealth-tax Act enabling the Department to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal questioning the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dropping the proceedings initiated by him under section 35 of the said Act and that the appeal filed by the Department is incompetent ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act could not be invoked to apply the amended provisions of section 5(1)(viii) of the said Act on the ground that the said amended provisions of section 5(1)(vii) involved a debatable question of law ?" * The AAC took certain proceedings for the purpose of rectification of the order which he had passed, in view of certain amendments to the W.T. Act. After giving notice to the assessee he dropped the said proceedings. Against the said order, there was an appeal to the Tribunal, which the Tribunal has dismissed as incompetent. In the view of the Tribunal, there was no provision for filing an appeal against an order passed under s. 35 of the W.T. Act. The learned counsel for the Commissioner was not in a position to dispute the fact that s. 24 of the W.T. Act does not provide for an appeal against the proceedings of the AAC dropping rectification proceedings. A similar question arose under the Indian I.T. Act of the year 1922, and it was held by a Bench of this court in CIT v. Vellingiri Gounder that no appeal lay to the AAC against the order of rectification passed by the ITO. The same decision holds good for the W.T. Act also. Therefore, we do not find that any referable question arises out of the Tribunal's order. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250 one set.