ARIJIT PASAYAT, CJ. , (ORAL) ( 1 ) PURSUANT to directions given by this Court under Section 27 (3) of the Wealth-taxact, 1957 (in short, the Act) following questions have been referred for opinion of thiscourt; 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified and correct in giving a finding that the value returned by theassessee in respect of the house property No. 9, Aurangzeb Road, Newdelhi, was bona fide and there is no material on th e record to hold. that thevaluer was deliberately understated by the assessee ?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas correct in law in holding that the assessee discharged the onus that layon her under the Explanation to Section 18 (10 (c) of the Wealth-tax Act, toprove that she was not guilty of gross or wilful neglect in understanding her wealth ?" ( 2 ) FACTUAL position is to be noted in brief. The dispute relates to assessment years1968-69 and 1969-70. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the assesseedeclared value of the property at 9, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 12 lakhs butfor the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 the valuation is shown at Rs. 7,76,800. 00. On 18. 2. 1971 ,the property was sold for Rs. 22,60,000. 00. It is to be notedthat on 17. 8. 65 the property was purchased for Rs. 17 lakhs. In 1965 assesseedeclared the yalue of the property at Rs. 17 lakhs and that she had spent Rs. 1,42,750. 00. Wealth Tax officer accepted the valuation made by the District Valuationofficer at Rs. 19,21,000. 00 and valued the property at this figure in both the years. Penalty proceedings undersection 18 (1 ) (c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurateparticulars. The matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner whoissued notice to the assessee. On consideration of the explanation submitted by theassessee, IAC came to the conclusion that the assessee was guilty of furnishinginaccurate particulars of wealth. He noted that the Tribunal had finally held in theappeals relating to assessment of net wealth that the value of the property in thesetwo assessment years was Rs. 11 lakhs. The matter was carried in appeal before thetribunal. On consideration of factual aspects pressed into service by the party. He noted that the Tribunal had finally held in theappeals relating to assessment of net wealth that the value of the property in thesetwo assessment years was Rs. 11 lakhs. The matter was carried in appeal before thetribunal. On consideration of factual aspects pressed into service by the party. Tribunal came to hold that the figure returned by the assessee was done bonafideand there was no deliberate understatement or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Itwas further held that the assessee was not guilty of any gross or wilful neglect and,therefore penalty imposed for each year was cancelled. Application for referencemade under section 26 (1) was not accepted. This Court has directed reference andthe questions as set out above were referred for our opinion: ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue submitted that there was clear attempt tounderstate the value of the property. Valuation adopted at different times clearlyestablish that the assessee had not disclosed the correct figure. There is noappearance by the assessee inspite of the service. ( 4 ) WHILE dealing with the factual aspects and the conclusions arrived at by thetribunal, we think it necessary to extract the relevant portion Of Tribunal s order whichreads as follows: "we have considered the submission of the parties and gone through therecord. It appears that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was mainlyinfluenced in levying the penalty by the fact that this property was purchasedby the assessee on 17/08/1965 for a sum of Rs. 17 lacs. It is true that itwas so but the assessee had explained the circumstances in which she hadto pay this fabulous price, the assessee had sold 24 Ferozeshah Road on20. 2. 1965. She was in search of a residence nearabout this locality and till aresidence was found, she had to shift to Claridges Hotel with her husbandand son. She stayed there for six months and after asearch, was able to findthe property at 9, Aurangzeb Road. The necessity for the immediate purchaseof the property was also due to the fact that by investing the sale proceeds of24, Ferozeshah Road, she could save the capital gains tax of the value of Rs. 11,37,000. 6. In order to save this capital gain, it was necessary for theassessee to purchase the new property within one year of the sale of 24,ferozeshah Road. In the meanwhile, she was staying in Claridges Hotel andincurring high expenditure. 11,37,000. 6. In order to save this capital gain, it was necessary for theassessee to purchase the new property within one year of the sale of 24,ferozeshah Road. In the meanwhile, she was staying in Claridges Hotel andincurring high expenditure. In these circumstances the Tribunal; in theassessee s appeal against assessment held that the price of Rs. 17 lakhspaid by the assessee was a fancy price. The Tribunal then determined the fair market value of this property onthe basis of the following evidence8. The value of this property was returned by Dr Krupp at Rs. 5. 25 lacs andaccepted by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1957-58 to1963-64. In the assessment year 1965-65, Dr. Krupp returned a value of Rs. 11 lacs which was also accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer as the correctmarket value. In the assessment year 1965-66, Dr. Krupp no doubt returnedthe value of this property at Rs. 17 lakhs, but he was bound to do so, as hehad sold the property for that amount and was leaving the country and didnot want to be embroiled in any dispute with the Wealth-tax authorities. Thetribunal observed that otherwise it could not be expected that its value wouldgo up by six lacs in one year. The Tribunal then referred to the value of thedistrict Valuation Officer in his report dated 16/08/1974 at Rs. 13,26,000. 00. The Tribunal took into account the following three instances ofsales of properties in this locality : 1. 13-Aurangzeb Road sold on 15-1-66 by Sardar Mokham Singh Sandhu tom/s Gupta and Syal Pvt Ltd. for Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. 3, Aurangzeb Road, purchased by Shri Biju Patnaik Ex Chief Minister oforissa on 29-10-63 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,69,950. 00. 3. 24, Ferozeshah Road was sold by the assessee herself to Soviet Embassyon 20. 2. 66 for Rs. 11 lacs. The Tribunal then pointed out that in valuing this property the restrictionsimposed in the Zonal Development Plan have to be taken into account. According to the Zonal Development plan of this area, Aurangzeb Road wasto be closed and two Nursery Schools were proposed to be constructed in thefront lawn of this property. 2. 66 for Rs. 11 lacs. The Tribunal then pointed out that in valuing this property the restrictionsimposed in the Zonal Development Plan have to be taken into account. According to the Zonal Development plan of this area, Aurangzeb Road wasto be closed and two Nursery Schools were proposed to be constructed in thefront lawn of this property. There was 120 ft wide road which was proposed tobe known as Aurangzeb Road and instead of that it was proposed to providean alternative road of 45 ft wide and even then the access to this propertywas to be from the service lane on the back side of this property. Thetribunal inspected the spot in order to understand the alternative accesswhich was proposed in the draft plan and it was found that the access wasfrom the service lane. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances thetribunal estimated the value of this property at Rs. 11 lacs for each of theassessment years sunder appeal. 8. The assessee had declared the value of this property at Rs. 7,76,000. 00 inthe returns of wealth on the basis of the valuation report of an approvedvaluer. A specific note to this effect was appended to the return as follows:- "the value of the property known as 9, Aurangzeb Road New Delhi has beentaken on the basis of the valuation made by approved valuers plus 2 lacs. The relevant certificate will be produced when required. It would not, therefore, be correct to say that the assessee declared the valueof this property at Rs. 7,76,800/ without any basis. The basis was theapproved valuer s report. It may be that the approved valuer had erred inestimating the value, but it cannot be said that the declaration of the valuewas without any basis. As seen above, the Tribunal had estimated the valueof this property at Rs. 11 lacs taking into account various considerations. There has been difference of opinion in regard to estimate of valuationbetween the approved valuer of the assessee the departmental valuer andthe income-tax authorities. Considering the totality of the facts andcircumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the value returned bythe assessee on the basis of her approved valuer s report was bonafide andthere is no material on the record to hold that it was deliberately understatedor that the assessee was guilty of any gross or wilful neglect in returning thisvalue. Considering the totality of the facts andcircumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the value returned bythe assessee on the basis of her approved valuer s report was bonafide andthere is no material on the record to hold that it was deliberately understatedor that the assessee was guilty of any gross or wilful neglect in returning thisvalue. For all these reasons we cancel the impugned penalties. ( 5 ) FROM the portion of the Tribunal s order extracted above, it is clear that Tribunalconsidered the relevant aspect and recorded following findings of fact (a) it would notbe correct to say that assessee declared value of the property without any basis (b)even if the approved valuer had erred in estimating the value, it cannot be said thatdeclaration of value was without any basis (e) Tribunal had estimated the value bytaking into account various considerations, (d) there was difference of opinionregarding valuation between approved valuer, departmental valuer and Income-taxauthorities. ( 6 ) TRIBUNAL has taken into account the basic features, relevant aspects and hasalso indicated that the assessee made no attempt to understate the valuation. Theconclusions are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. Where thedetermination of an issue depends upon the appreciation of evidence or materialsresulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any principle of law,the issue raises a mere question of fact. In such cases, Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and upon examination of all evidence and material before it, certainfindings are reached, deciding the existence or otherwise of certain facts at issue. Aninference from certain facts is also a question of fact. That being the position, wedecline to answer the question referred. The reference applications are accordingly disposed of.