( 1 ) THESE five Wealth-tax Applications, namely, WTR Nos. 96, 97, 98, 106 and 170 of 1984 raise indentical questions. ( 2 ) THEY, as such, are being decided by a common order. The prayer contained in these applications under Section 27 (3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is that the Tribunal may be called upon to refer to this court for its opinion the three questions mentioned therein. As regards question No. 1 we are of the opinion that it does not arise from the appellate order of the tribunal. The remaining questions Nos. 2 and 3 are being reproduced herein below as questions nos. 1 and 2 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could reasonably come to a finding that no benami transaction was involved in this case ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in directing the exclusion of the value of 208 acres of land from the total wealth of the assessee ?" ( 3 ) WTA No. 96 of 1984 is in regard to assessment year 1971-72, WTA No. 97 of 1984 is in regard to assessment year 1972-73, WTA No. 98 of 1984 is in regard to assessment year 1973-74, WTA No. 170 of 1984 is in regard to assessment year 1974-75 and WTA No. 106 of 1984 is in regard to assessment year 1976-77. ( 4 ) EARLIER, an application under Section 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, had been made before the Tribunal by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for referring the two questions referred to above, in regard to the assessment year 1975-76. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Whereupon, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax made an application to this court under Section 27 (3), being WTA No. 192 of 1981. The aforesaid application after hearing counsel for the parties was allowed by a Division Bench of this court on January 27, 1982, and the Tribunal was directed to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this court. The aforesaid application after hearing counsel for the parties was allowed by a Division Bench of this court on January 27, 1982, and the Tribunal was directed to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this court. ( 5 ) A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in the instant cases indicates that the applications made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 27 (1) in these cases were dismissed on the ground that a similar application in regard to the assessment year 1975-76 had been dismissed by it. Since in regard to the assessment year 1975-76, the application made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 27 (3) has been allowed by this court as already pointed out above, we are of the opinion that these five applications also for the same reason deserve to be allowed. We accordingly direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this court in each of these five cases also. Parties shall bear their own costs. .