Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The question of law referred to us for our decision at the instance of the Revenue is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the provisions of section 17(1)(b) of the Act could not be validly invoked in the assessee's case and hence the assessment has to be cancelled ?" The assessee is an individual. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1976-77. She had filed the return of wealth for the said assessment year showing the value of the property called K. Ramya, situate at No. 9-C Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras, at Rs. 2, 70, 000 supported by an approved valuer's report. It is seen from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that on the basis of an audit objection, it was found that the value of the building at No. 9-C, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras-18, was underassessed and the Wealth-tax Officer took the audit objection as information envisaged by section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, and reopened the assessments for the years 1974-75 and 1976-77 and completed the assessment adopting the value of the building for the assessment year 1976-77 at Rs. 3, 45, 610 as against the admitted value of Rs. 2, 70, 000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the reassessment for the assessment year 1976-77 on the ground that the audit objection could not be construed as information within the meaning of section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal, on the appeal preferred by the Department, came to the conclusion that the Wealth-tax Officer has applied his mind to the facts on the record which included the assessment of the property for earlier years. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the valuation was arrived at by the Wealth-tax Officer after applying his mind to the question and, therefore, the audit note cannot be considered as information and the initiation of the proceedings cannot be said to be valid. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the reassessment was invalid because it was not within the powers conferred on him by section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. Hence, this referenceMr. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the reassessment was invalid because it was not within the powers conferred on him by section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. Hence, this referenceMr. C. V. Rajan, learned standing counsel for the Department, submitted that the audit report has drawn the attention of the Wealth-tax Officer to the correct value of the properties and, therefore, it would constitute a basis for information. Mr. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Wealth-tax Officer after applying his mind to the value of the property, arrived at the value of the property in the original assessment in a proceeding subsequently, initiated under section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. He also submitted that if rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules is applied to determine the value of the property, the value of the property returned by him would be much more than the value arrived at on the basis of rule 1BB of the Rules. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of counsel. We are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal on the question whether the Wealth-tax Officer has applied his mind at the time of making the original assessment on the question of determination of the value of the property is correct. It is well settled that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules though inserted with effect from April 1, 1979, will have full retrospective operation and would apply to all pending assessment proceedings. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if the provisions of rule 1BB is applied, the value of the property determined at the time of original assessment would be much more than would be arrived at on the basis of the statutory rules. Learned counsel for the Revenue has not disputed this position of law, under rule 1BB the value of the property has to be determined on the statutory formula. The Supreme Court has held that it would apply to all pending proceedings, and if that rule is applied, the value of the property returned to be determined by applying the provisions of the rule 1BB of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 17(1)(b) could not be validly invoked in the assessee's case. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 17(1)(b) could not be validly invoked in the assessee's case. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be order as to costs.