IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.--The facts leading to this Reference' by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore are that General Attorney of the Trustees of the estate of late Sir William Roberts, who died on 16.6.1971, filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging before it the order dated 1.11.1975 passed by the Controller of Estate Duty, Lahore under sections 61 (1)/58A of the Estate Duty Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act, whereby the value of the agricultural land owned by the deceased was determined on the basis of market value at Rs.17,35,405/- in place of valuation initially determined at the rate of Rs.10/- per Produce Index Unit. The appeal was, however, dismissed by order dated 4.7.1977 wherein it was held that the Controller of Estate Duty did not travel beyond the scope of his jurisdiction in re-opening the assessment under section 61 (1). Of the Act in that in the original valuation of the land in dispute Was not determined as prescribed under section 38(1). The applicant herein moved an application under section 59A of the Estate Duty Act, 1950 for referring the following questions to this Court for decision:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the notice dated 13.8.75 was a Valid notice within the meaning of section 61(1) without requiring the assessee to submit an account of all property.
"2. Whether the notice dated 29-9-75 could be issued u/s 58-A without there being a pending return available for adjudication.
"3. Whether a notice u/s 61(1) could be issued without there being any material on record to show under valuation of the property.
"4. Whether the rule 25-A not relied upon by the assessee could be made a basis for re-opening the assessm ent or upholding the same.
"5. Whether the valuation made on the basis of one mode could be substituted by another mode when the earlier mode is not illegal.
"6. Whether the valuation made in the original assessment was illegal.
"7. Whether the assessm ent could be re-opened on the basis that the earlier assessment was not legal."
2. On the basis of material placed before it and after considering the submission of the parties, the Tribunal took the view that several questions specified in the application for reference were only of particular determination of one and the same question which was formulated in the following terms:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Controller was competent under section 61(1) of the Estate Duty Act to re-open assessment."
3. Mr. Imtiaz Javed, learned counsel for the applicant argued that before proceeding under section 61(1), the Controller had to issue a notice in terms of the said section which was not done in the instant case, in that the statutory requirement was that the notice should specifically 'require an accountable person to submit an account of all property within such time as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf. Here, the notice did not contain the afore-quoted requirement and therefore, the action taken by the Controller on the basis of said notice was of no legal consequences.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant turns on the determination of the scope of notice issued by the Controller which reads as under:- "My predecessor determined the value of agricultural land owned by the late Sir William Roberts on the basis of Produce Index Units whereas the Value of such lands should have been computed on the basis of the market value as on the date of death of the late Sir William Roberts. In this view of the matter I propose to revalue the agricultural lands under sub-section (1) of Section 61 (of the Estate Duty Act, 1950). However, before I do so an opportunity is afforded to you to put in any representation/evidence against the proposed action."
5; A bare perusal of the notice served on the applicant would show that in the phraseology used therein a particular mentioned has not been made in it requiring the accountable person to submit an account of property within such time as has been specified by the Controller in this behalf but the applicant was provided an opportunity to put in any representation/evidence against the proposed re-valuation of the agricultural land under sub-section (1) of section 61 of the Act. The term "evidence" used in the notice is of a wide connotation and includes the direction for submitting an account of all the property within the meaning of section 61 (1) ibid. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant failed to raise any objection as to the validity of the notice before the Controller. On the contrary, his authorised representative admittedly appeared before the Controller on 5.9.1975 and made a categorical statement that he did not wish to produce any evidence except the written statement, which he did on 4.9.1975. Thus visualised, the requirements of section 61(1) were fully met in this case and mere absence of specific direction to the accountable person to submit an account of all the property has not rendered the notice in question as void or invalid.
6. It is next contended that not only the Controller could not assume jurisdiction unless the statement of account was filed but the proceedings under section 58A of the Estate Duty Act, 1950 could not be initiated unless there was a return pending adjudication before the Controller of Estate Duty. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, as there was no return pending before the Controller, therefore the power vesting in the Controller in respect of valuation under section 58A was not attracted. This contention, too has no merit. Section 61 of the Act is a self contained provision which empowers the Controller to redetermine the valuation if for any reason it is discovered by him that too low a valuation was placed on the property subject to estate duty.
Here, the proceedings were validly initiated and completed pursuant to a valid notice served upon the applicant. The applicant fully participated in the proceedings before the Controller and declined to lead any evidence to contradict the report/s of the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan on which revaluation of the disputed land was made. There is great force in the submission of Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan that re-valuation did not suffer from any infirmity in law. It is not the case of the applicant that the re-valuation done by the Controller was on the higher side and that the same was not the market value at the relevant time.
7. Be that as it may, the re-valuation done by the Controller after notice under section 61(1) of the Act has the effect of setting right a manifest wrong in that the earlier valuation on the basis of Produce Index Unit-value had no warrant or authority in law. As held in Controller of Estate Duty vs. Syeda Kishwar Sultana and another (1976) 34 Tax 45 (Lah.) and Controller of Estate Duty vs. The Estate of Syed Qalander Ali Shah (1976) 34 Tax 49 (Lah.) rule 25-A((1)) of the Estate Duty Rules, having been incorporated on 29.10.1971, could not be made the basis for the valuation of the disputed land with retrospective effect.
8. Looked at from whatever angle, the re-valuation of the disputed land by the Controller of Estate Duty which was upheld by the Tribunal has not been shown to be suffering from any infirmity in law.
9. For the foregoing reasons we are; of the opinion that question reproduced above does n6t strictly arise out of the Tribunal's order. The Reference is, therefore, returned as above. But there is no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.