Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this reference shall also govern disposal of other connected references arising between the same parties being IT Ref No. 104/1998, IT Ref No. 105/1998, IT Ref. No. 106/1998, IT Ref. No. 107/1998 and IT Ref. No. 109/1998. ( 2. ) ALL these applications are made at the instance of Revenue under Section 27 (3) of the WT Act, requiring the Tribunal to send/refer to this Court the question proposed for being answered by this Court under Section 27 (1) of the WT Act. Since the Tribunal declined to make a reference prayed for by the Revenue and hence, these applications are submitted. ( 3. ) THE dispute in this case pertains to asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1988-89. The dispute relates to the question as to which method of valuation should be applied for making valuation of property belonging to the respondent (assessee), which is in possession of his tenant--Postal Department. Assessee applied the method provided under Rule 1bb of the WT Rules. This issue was then taken up before the CIT (A) and then before the Tribunal. The question arose before the Tribunal as to which method should be applied. One contention was that the method provided under Rule 1bb should be applied whereas the other contention was the method provided under Schedule III, which had replaced Rule 1bb should be applied. In the opinion of the Tribunal which decided the second appeal, the property in possession of tenant should be valued in accordance with the method provided under the Schedule III and not as per Rule 1bb ibid. The Tribunal placed reliance on the two authorities of the Supreme Court reported as Bharat Han Singhania v. CWT and Ors. , (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) and later upheld by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Ors. , (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC) and was followed by Rajasthan High Court in the case reported as CWT v. Bhanwar Lal Gupta (1997) 228 ITR 650 (Raj ). It is against this view of the Tribunal, the Revenue felt aggrieved and submitted an application under Section 27 (1) of the WT Act to the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court to decide the issue proposed, namely, which method should be applied in such case. It is against this view of the Tribunal, the Revenue felt aggrieved and submitted an application under Section 27 (1) of the WT Act to the Tribunal requesting the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court to decide the issue proposed, namely, which method should be applied in such case. By impugned order (Annex: H), Tribunal declined to make a reference to this Court holding that when the issue is already answered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bharat Han Singhania v. CWT (supra) and later affirmed in (1994) 210 ITR 886 (SC), there arises no occasion for the Tribunal to make any reference to the High Court for its answer on merits. It was held that when the issue is settled for all practical purposes by the decision of the Supreme Court, then there is no need to make any reference to High Court as the decision of Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in the country. It is against this order, Revenue has come up to this Court under Section 27 (3) of the WT Act requesting this Court to call for a reference on the question proposed. ( 4. ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior advocate with Smt. S. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri K. N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for respondent. ( 5. ) HEAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal when it rejected the application submitted by the Revenue under Section 27 (1) of the WT Act. In our considered opinion, no fault can be found in the approach of the learned members of the Tribunal when they declined to make a reference to this Court on the question proposed by the Revenue. ( 6. ) ONE cannot dispute this fact that the issue proposed to be raised by the Revenue is settled by the aforementioned two decisions of the Supreme Court. The question as to whether Rule 1bb of the WT Rules should be applied or Schedule III for undertaking valuation of the assessees properties has since been answered. It has been held, inter alia, that these two provisions are not substantial one on the statute book but being procedural in nature, they are applicable to the pending proceedings as well. The question as to whether Rule 1bb of the WT Rules should be applied or Schedule III for undertaking valuation of the assessees properties has since been answered. It has been held, inter alia, that these two provisions are not substantial one on the statute book but being procedural in nature, they are applicable to the pending proceedings as well. It is on the basis of this principle laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforementioned two cases, the taxing authorities were justified in directing the AO to apply Schedule III which came into force while pendency of proceedings and make valuation of the assets of the assessee accordingly. ( 7. ) WE, therefore, find no ground, much less good ground to call for a reference from the Tribunal on the questions proposed because, in our view, question of law does not arise for being answered. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal and also, while rejecting the application submitted by the Revenue under Section 27 (1) of the WT Act is legal and proper. It does not call for any interference. All the applications, therefore, found to be devoid of substance and are accordingly dismissed.