' Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.--This is a reference under section 59-A of the Estate Duty Act. The applicant wants us to consider the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal namely:-- "(i) Whether there was any basis, material or evidence on record to support the estimate of share capital of Late Fazal Hussain in Messrs Pakistan Cement Tile Works, Hyderabad at Rs,2,00,000?
(ii) Whether there was any basis, material or evidence on record to justify the estimate of the value of Messrs Pak Iron and Steel Works, Hyderabad at Rs,2,00,000?
(iii) Whether there was any material or basis on record to support determination of the 4/16th share of Late Fazal Hussain in Messre Pakistan Hume Pipe Works, Hyderabad at Rs,50,000 as against Debit Balance of Rs,21,289 as per Balance Sheet on record?
(iv) Whether the finding that Messrs Syed Industrial and Commercial Corporation, Hyderabad, belonged to late Fazal Hussain was not inconsistent with the evidence and contradictory of the material on record and whether there was any evidence on record to support the conclusion reached at by the "Tribunal"?
(V) Whether there was any basis, evidence or material on record to justify the determination of the value of Bungalow No,529/G, Karachi at Rs,2,00,000? (Deleted now).
(vi) Whether there was any basis, evidence or material on record to support the estimate of the value of property No,D/891/2 Hyderabad at Rs,2,50,000?
(vii) Whether there was any evidence or material on record for including 1/4th share of the "benefits of lease" of Plot No,B/10, S.I.T.E. Hyderabad in the Estate left by late Fazal Hussain?
(viii)Whether there was any evidence or material with the Tribunal to disregard liability of "Prompt Dower" amounting to Rs,50,000?"
2. It is not necessary to relate the whole state of facts presented before us by the appellant.
However, the brief facts are that there has been an assessment in respect of the Estate left by late Fazal Hussain which was estimated at Rs,17,13,239 by the Controller of Estate Duty on 30th September, 1970, whereas the applicant had declared the net value of the Estate at Rs, 7,75,790.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in respect of the matters pertaining to this Reference the Appellate Tribunal has arbitrarily dismissed the appeal of the appellant and the Tribunal did not exercise its own mind in respect of these matters and merely copied out the order of the Controller.
4. Counsel has shown us paragraph 3 of the order of Appellate Tribunal and paragraph 6 of order of the Controller in respect of Pak Cement Tile Works, Hyderabad they are exactly the same and relate to question No,1.
5. Similarly para. 4 of the order of Tribunal is just what is contained in sub-para. (2) of para. 6 of the order of Controller in respect of Pak Iron And Steel Works, Hyderabad which relates to question 2.
6. Again paragraph 5 of the order of Tribunal is nothing but a copy of the order of the Controller as contained in sub-para. (4) of para. 6 of order of the Controller relating to question No, 3.
7. Similarly paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal in respect of Syed Industrial and Commercial Corporation is exactly the same as paragraph 6 of the order of the Controller and the same relates to question No,4.
8. Mr.Iqbal Naeem Pasha has not pressed question No, 5 before us and the same is, therefore, deleted from consideration.
9. Counsel pointed out that the order of the Appellate Tribunal in last part of para. 8 is exactly the same as sub-para. (5) of para. 11 of the order of the Controller which relates to question No,6.
10. Similarly para. 10 of the order of the Tribunal is the same as sub-para. (8) of para. 11 of the order of the Controller which relates to question No,7.
11. The discussion about Prompt dower in paragraph 12 of the order of Appellate Tribunal does not give reason as to why the Prompt dower of Rs,50,000 was disregarded. The Controller while discussing item 1 of the liabilities of the Estate had also not given any reason as to why Prompt dower of Rs,50,000 was being disregarded and only Rs,50,000 as deferred dower was accepted as the liability of the deceased. There is no discussion either by the Controller or the Appellate Tribunal about the status of the parties at the time of marriage which was the sole criterion in respect of the Dower and, therefore, the same appears to be arbitrary requiring re-consideration. This matter relates to question No, 8 before US.
12. It is apparent that the Appellate Tribunal has merely passed a mechanical order about the question No,5 which has not been pressed.
13. Consequently we find that matters relevant to questions Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 did not receive a judicial consideration from the Appellate Tribunal as it was bound to do under law and thus the Appellate Tribunal has failed to exercise its mind in respect of the matters to which these 7 questions relate and has failed to take into consideration the relevant material in respect of the same and has further failed to take into serious consideration the various submissions made by the applicant in respect of those matters. Consequently we are of the view that the 7 questions referred by the applicant should be re-framed into one question as under and should be answered in the affirmative.
Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of the matters enumerated in questions 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 above referred is a mechanical order without taking into active A consideration the submissions raised by the applicant in respect, of those matters and thus the order of the Appellate Tribunal is not an order passed within its lawful authority as it has merely passed order in the same terms as the order of the Collector without applying its own mind, with the result that the appeal of the applicant in those matters has not been really disposed and has to be treated as pending for disposal before the Appellate Tribunal."
' We answer this question in the affirmative.