This appeal is filed by Revenue in which relevant grounds read as follows: "The Ld. AAC has erred in law and on facts in directing WTO to take into account value of gold bond worth Rs. 32,656 under s. 5(1)(xii-a) of WT Act while valuing assessee's interest in firm of M/s Vepar." "The ld. AAC has erred in law and on facts in directing WTO to take into account securities amounting to Rs. 3,11,910 under s. 5(1)(xvi-a) and shares of Rs. 2759 under s. 5(1)(xx) of WT Act while valuing assessee's interest in firm of M/s Avakash." assessee is partner in firm styled M/s Vepar. In computing assessee's interest in said firm for inclusion in wealth-tax assessment of assessee WTO inter alia included sum of Rs. 32,656 being value of gold bond which was claimed as exempt by assessee under provisions of s. 5(1)(xii-a) of WT Act. In other words claim for exemption of respect of value of gold bonds in hands of firm was rejected by WTO, while determining value of WTO, of interest in said firm. Being aggrieved assessee went in appeal before AAC who directed that said amount be deducted in computing value of interest of assessee in said firm, relying on decision of Tribunal in WTA No. 169/Ahd/79 dt. 11th Dec., 1980 in case of Pallavi Mayor. Being aggrieved Revenue has come up in appeal before us. It was contended that AAC was not justified in directing WTO to allow exemption as aforesaid in determining value of interest in hands of assessee. ld. counsel for assessee on other hand relied on order of Tribunal referred to by AAC which we have cited supra. In our view there is not infirmity in decision of AAC. In first place issue is covered by decision of Tribunal cited supra and we are in respectful agreement with view taken in said appeal. We are further fortified by recent decision by their Lordships of Gujarat High Court in WTA No. 1 of 1984 dt. 14th Sept., 1984 in case of CIT vs. Shri Ramanlal B. Patel in which while making order under s. 256(2) of Act their Lordships have observed as follows: "In case of ordinary firm net wealth has to be assessed in manner laid down in s. 4(1)(b) and naturally that section refers to rules prescribed and that calls for reference to r. 2. So determined it is net wealth of firm that calls for determination as if firm is assessable under WT Act. In that process s. 5(1)(xi) calls for consideration and once benefits or s. 5(1)(xi) is applied to firm in determining its net wealth naturally net wealth of assessee is allocated and benefit is obtained by assessee. answer to question is, therefore, self-evidence. Tribunal's view calls for no interference. Hence we discharged rule." In light of above discussion we uphold decision of AAC, on this point. So far as second ground is concerned assessee is partner in firm styled M/s Avekash and while determining assessee's interest in said firm WTO computed same at Rs. 2,62,232 as against Rs. 1,91,173 as declared by assessee. above computation was challenged in appeal before AAC and it was submitted that difference between said valuation had arisen because of fact that WTO had not taken into account value of shares exemption under s. 5(1)(XX) amounting of Rs. 2,750 and sequiturs under s. 5(1)(xvi-a). AAC held that assessee was entitled to exemption of Rs. 2,750 provided necessary certificate in prescribed proforma was submitted by assessee. As regards other item, AAC for same reasons as recorded by him in case of determination of share of firm Vepar directed WTO to allow claim of assessee. Being aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. We see no reason to interfere with decision of AAC for same reasons as set out in this order while dealing with assessee's claim for determination of his share in M/s Vepar (supra). In other words for same reason as set out in ground No. 1 (supra) we uphold decision of AAC. appeal is dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. SUHRID S. SARABHAI