1. ' MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.---The following questions are referred to us under section 27 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Department: At the instance of the assessee: "(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that rule 1-D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, was mandatory in valuing the 4,229 shares of Surat Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. At valuation date March 31, 1968 and in confirming the valuation at Rs, 211 per share based on that rulp?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the said 4,229 shares of Surat Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Ought to have been valued at Rs, 175 per share, as was valued by approved valuer under section 24 (6) in the connected case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (1980) 124 ITR 799 (Born)?
(iii) Whether rule 1-D in so far as it goes beyond the substantive provisions of valuation contained in section 7(1) is invalid and/or ultra vires the rule making power of the Board under section 46 (2) of the Act and suffered from the vice of excessive legislation?"
2. At the instance of the Commissioner: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liabilities as shown in the balance-sheet are not to be reduced by the amount paid as advance-tax in terms of rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957?" ' it is an accepted position that questions (i) and (ii) which are at the instance of the assessee are governed by the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N.C.
3. Upadhya (1980) 124 ITR 799.
4. ' Accordingly, question No, (i) at the instance of the assessee is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
5. ' Regarding question No, (ii) at the instance of the assessee, the shares ought to have been valued at Rs, 175 per share as per the valuation made by the approved valuer.
6. ' Question No, (iii) at the instance of the assessee need not be answered in view of our answer to questions Nos. (i)and (ii).
7. ' It is also an accepted position that the question raised at the instance of the Commissioner is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of CWT v. Pratap Bhogilal (1987) 167 ITR 501. The question is, accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
8. ' No order as to costs.