(1) THESE appeals by special leave are directed against an order passed by the Gujarat High court dated 27/01/1981 dismissing an application under S. 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 made by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. (2) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High court was in error in n®t calling for a reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The question whether the Commissioner of Wealth Tax could act on material which came into existence subsequent to the order of assessment for purposes of invoking his powers of revision under S. 25(2) of the Act does give rise to a question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the High court should have required the Appellate tribunal to state a case. The Appellate tribunal in rejecting the application made by the Commissioner for a reference stated that the answers to both the questions sought to be referred were self-evident on its construction of S. 25(2) of the Act. We are afraid that merely because the Wealth Tax Officer in valuing the interest of the assessee who is an individual, in the five-storeyed building owned by the partnership firm accepted the valuation thereof by the assessees valuer who was an approved valuer of Rs. 5,10,000.00 for all the assessment years, would not preclude the reopening of the assessment as it was quite evident that the value of the assessees share in the firm had been understated and under-assessed for all the years. Subsequently, on a reference made by the Wealth Tax Officer in October 1976, the departmental valuer valued the property for wealth tax purposes and submitted a report dated 20/08/1977 which showed that it was worth Rs. 12,44,000.00 for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75, and Rs. 13,29,000.00 for the assessment year 1975-76. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax issued a notice under S. 25(2) of the Act and after giving an opportunity to the assessee to be heard, passed a common order dated 23/02/1978 setting aside all¯the assessments and directing the Wealth Tax Officer to make fresh assessments on the correct value of the property. On appeal, the Appellate tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order could not be sustained. On appeal, the Appellate tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order could not be sustained. (3) WE do feel that the High court should have in the facts and circumstances of the case required the Appellate tribunal to state a case. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the High court and direct the High court to require the Appellate tribunal to state a case, and make a reference of the following questions to the High Court for its opinion, namely: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax made under Section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, the finding of the Appellate tribunal that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order cannot be sustained, is correct in law ? (4) THE result therefore is that the appeals succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the High court is set aside and the application for reference under S. 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is allowed. No costs.