Judgment 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law, for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 have been referred to this court for its opinion, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, under Sec. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 ? 2. Whether the operation of Sec. 7(4) is retrospective in nature ?" 2. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was inserted by the Finance Act, 1976 , with effect from April 1, 1976. This Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 7, is as under : " Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. (1), the value of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purposes throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date may, at the option of the assessee, be taken to be the price which, in the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date next following the date on which he became the owner of the house, or on the valuation date relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, whichever valuation date is later : Provided that where more than one house belonging to the assessee is exclusively used by him for residential purposes, the provisions of this Sub-sec. shall apply only in respect of one of such houses which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf in the return of net wealth. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,-- (i) where the house has been constructed by the assessee, he shall be deemed to have become the owner thereof on the date on which the construction of such house was completed ; (ii) house includes a part of a house being an independent residential unit." 3. Mr. Sharan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that the operation of Sub-section (4) could not be retrospective. According to learned counsel, the Tribunal has held that the house is being exclusively used for the residential purposes. 4. The Tribunal has considered the case on the merits. But it is not necessary for us to go into that. Mr. Sharan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that the operation of Sub-section (4) could not be retrospective. According to learned counsel, the Tribunal has held that the house is being exclusively used for the residential purposes. 4. The Tribunal has considered the case on the merits. But it is not necessary for us to go into that. From the perusal of the record, it is not clear as to when the assessment for the aforesaid three years under Sec. 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act by the Wealth-tax Officer was made. However, the appellate order is dated March 31, 1983, which is by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The order of the Tribunal is dated November 13, 1984. We have mentioned these dates to show that when these proceedings were being conducted, Sub-section (4) of Sec. 7 of the Wealth-tax Act was in force. 5. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the assessee, has referred to a Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in CWT V/s. Niranjan Narottam [1988] 173 ITR 693. He has contended that Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 7 is procedural in nature and would have retrospective effect. 6. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal and we find ourselves in agreement with the same. The contention of Mr. Sharan in any case will apply only in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and not for the later year. 7. In any case, we agree with the decision given by the Gujarat High Court, referred to above, about retrospective operation of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, and in view of the clear finding of the Tribunal, we have to answer both the questions, in the affirmative, and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8. There will be no order as to costs.