These three departmental appeals related to three different assessees, Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi, Seth Mahesh Kumar Modi and Seth Manmohan Modi and they all relate to their wealth-tax assessments for assessment year 1975-76. These three persons were partners in firm Synfibre Sales Corporation. This firm was having some shares of Indofil Chemicals Ltd. While valuing interest of partners in firm Synfibre Sales Corporation, WTO following his order for assessment year 1973-74 valued shares in Indofil Chemicals Ltd. under rule 1D of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules') as against value shown in balance sheet at cost. WTO, thus made adjustment to net wealth of firm and ascertained partners' interest in partnership on above basis. working of value of partners' interest in firm is given in Annexure 'B' to assessment orders in case of above three assessees. 2. In first appeal before AAC, assessee challenged determination of value of partners ' interest in firm on basis adopted by WTO and it was pointed out that in case of Seth Rakesh Kumar Modi, who also was partner in above firm, commissioner (Appeals) had decided this issue and had deleted addition made by WTO. AAC following same order, deleted additions made by WTO. 3. Now department has filed these appeals and in all three appeals common question is: "Whether while determining value of partners' interest in firm it was open to Wealth-tax Officer to value shares in Indofil Chemicals Ltd. by adopting their market value and for this purpose apply rule 1D of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957?" 4. matter had come up earlier before Division Bench and at that time reference was made to decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi v. WTO [1983] 139 ITR 373 as well ass another decision of same High Court in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1979] 116 ITR 646. While revenue relied on observations in later case, assessee contended on basis of judgment in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra). attention of Division Bench was also drawn to fact that in some of cases of this group matters had already been decided by Tribunal also. decision in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1979] 116 ITR 646 (All.) had been upheld by Supreme Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485. In order to reconcile position, Special Bench has been constituted by President and that is how matter is before us. 5. We have heard departmental representative as well as learned counsel for assessees at length and we proceed to give arguments of two sides without going into those arguments which are not directly related to point under consideration and confining to relevant case laws which are relied upon by parties. departmental representative, Shri J.S. Rao, submitted that orders passed by AAC and earlier orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in case of Rakesh Kumar Modi had proceeded on basis of decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra). It was pointed out that case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) was delivered in writ proceeding challenging reopening of wealth-tax assessment for assessment year 1971-72. Shri Satish Kumar Modi was also partner in firm Synfibre Sales Corporation and in original proceeding value of interest of assessee in above firm was taken on basis disclosed in balance sheet of firm. Later on, assessment proceedings were reopened on ground that Synfibre Sales Corporation owned shares of Indofil Chemicals Ltd. and which had been shown at face value of such shares whereas they ought to be taken at market value. market value was determined in accordance with rule 1D and notice under section 17 of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') was issued by WTO. When this notice was issued High Court referred to rule 2 of Rules, which provides for valuation of interest of partner in firm observed as under: Seth Satish Kumar Modi's case (supra): "This rule lays down that to begin with net wealth of firm should be calculated, and thereafter interest of partners worked out as set out therein. Neither Act nor Rules lay down any particular procedure for calculation of net wealth of firm. This Court, however, has considered matter in two cases, CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1973] 90 ITR 418 (All.) and CWT v. Laxmipat Singhania [1974] 97 ITR 188 (All.). In Padampat Singhania's case, assessee, as karta of Hindu undivided family, had 1/3rd share in partnership firm and his interest in firm had to be calculated for purposes of computing his net wealth. In computing net wealth of firm, ITO ignored arrears of income-tax due against firm, in view of section 2(m) of Wealth-tax Act. It was held that as net wealth of firm was being determined and not of assessee, provisions of section 2(m) of Act could not be relied upon for excluding income-tax liabilities. It was also laid down that net wealth of firm had to be calculated under rule 2 in accordance with commercial principles, and special provision in Act for computation of net wealth cannot be applied for purposes of computing net wealth of firm under rule 2. Same is position in other case. In Advanced Accountancy by Batliboi, it has been stated on page 574, that fixed assets are to be valued at cost. There is nothing on record in case, that firm, while preparing its balance sheet did not value shares held by it in Indofil Chemicals Ltd. on this basis. Thus, firm had valued its shares in accordance with settled principles of accountancy, as prevailing in commercial circles. Rule 1D is special rule for calculating market value of unquoted shares of company. However, inasmuch as rule 2 does not require net wealth of firm to be calculated as laid down in Act or Rules, market value of shares could not have been calculated in accordance with rule 1D. shares had to be valued at their cost price in accordance with settled commercial principles. This being so, firm could value shares in Indofil Chemicals Ltd. at their cost price. assessee had shown value of his interest in firm on basis of valuation adopted by firm, which was based on commercial method of accountancy. only ground given by WTO for forming belief that net wealth had escaped assessment is that valuation of shares of Indofil Chemicals Ltd. held by firm, of which assessee was partner, had not been calculated in accordance with rule 1D, with result that they have been undervalued. But on view expressed earlier that net wealth of firm has to be calculated not in accordance with Act or Rules, but on principles of commercial accountancy, belief which WTO entertained that net wealth has escaped assessment was based on no relevant material and was arbitrary, as shares had been correctly valued and earlier order determining valuation of assessee's interest in firm was correct. notice as such has to be quashed...." (p. 379) 6. It was submitted by departmental representative that it was no basis of this judgment earlier orders of Commissioner (Appeals) and AACs were passed. Tribunal also in case of some of other partners of firm has followed above decision and it has been held that value of interest of partner in firm has to be determined on commercial principles and net wealth of firm could not be determined on basis of Act or Rules. learned departmental representative pointed out that in earlier judgment in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra), Allahabad High Court had considered question whether while determining value or interest of partner in firm, building belonging to firm could be separately valued at its market value and not at cost as shown in balance sheet of firm. High Court held that value of such building or any other asset can be separately determined at market value as rule 2 and section 7 of Act have to be read harmoniously. High Court had also held that for purposes of valuing such separate asset along with firm, WTO can make reference to valuation officer. 7. According to departmental representative, decision in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) was only in respect of reopening assessment and, therefore, this earlier judgment should be followed. He submitted that decision in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra) has been considered by Supreme Court and they have upheld decision of Allahabad High Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers' case (supra). It was pointed out that Supreme Court held that interest of partner in firm belongs to partner and no legal fiction was required for treating it as belonging to him. Court further held that deeming provision in section 4(1)(b) of Act is referable only to quantification of interest in firm and such quantification has to be determined in prescribed manner and it is includible in wealth of assessee. It was further pointed out that value of interest wealth of assessee. It was further pointed out that value of interest in partnership has to be determined in accordance with rule 2. Supreme Court made following observations about above rule: "The aforesaid rule clearly says that in order to determine valuation of partner's interest in firm, first net wealth of firm has to be determined, which determination, of course, is governed by section 7 of Act rule goes on to provide as to how net wealth of firm so determined shall be allocated among partners of firm, which allocated amount will be regarded as value of interest of each partner in firm...." (p. 494) 8. In context of adjustments which have to be made in accordance with Rules, our attention was drawn to following observations of Supreme Court: "On fair reading of aforesaid provisions it will appear clear that primary method of determining value of assets for purposes of Act is one indicated in section 7(1), inasmuch as it provides that value of any assets, other than cash, for purposes of this Act shall be estimated to be its market price on valuation date. Then comes sub-section (2) which provides that in case of business for which accounts are maintained by assessee regularly WTO may, instead of determining separately valuation of each asset held by assessee in such business, determine net value of business as whole having regard to balance sheet of such business as on valuation date and making such adjustment therein as may be prescribed. It is true that sub-section (2) commences with non obstante clause, but even so, provision itself is enabling one conferring discretion on WTO to determine net value of assets of business as whole having regard to its balance sheets as on valuation date, instead of proceeding under sub-section (1). In other words, it is optional for WTO to resort to either of methods even in case where net value of business carried on by assessee is to be determined. Thirdly, even when he proceeds under sub-section (2) he has to determine net value of business as whole having regard to balance sheet of such business as on valuation date; phrase 'having regard to balance sheet of such business as judicial interpreted means that WTO has to take into consideration or account balance sheet of such business for such valuation and not that such balance sheet is conclusive or binding or decisive of values of assets appearing therein. Fourthly, said sub-section also says that WTO has to 'name such adjustments therein as may be prescribed' and in this behalf rules 2A and 2B already quoted above indicate what adjustments WTO has to make while determining net value of business as whole. Particularly sub-rule (2) of rule 2B clearly provides that where market value of asset exceeds its written down value or book value by more than 20 per cent, value of that asset for purpose of rule 2A shall be taken to be its market value. In other words, it is clear that even where WTO has resorted to section 7(2) for determining value of assets of business as whole written down values or book values of specific assets as appearing in balance sheet are not sacrosanct and when market value exceeds written down value of book value by more than 20 per cent, WTO has to adopt market value of such assets for purposes of this Act. This is apart form position that resort to section 7(2) itself is discretionary and optional, provision being enabling one." (p. 495) departmental representative submitted that in view of very clear and categorical decision of Supreme Court, it follows that interest of partner in firm has to be determined in accordance with rule 2 and while determining net wealth of firm for that purpose, market value of any asset can be determined and difference can be added to net wealth shown on basis of figures appearing in balance sheet. In this connection, departmental representative pointed out that when rule 2 refers to 'net wealth' of firm expression 'net wealth' will have same meaning as in Act. He pointed out that rule 1A(m) of Rules provides that terms used in Rules have same meaning as in Act. It was, therefore, argued by departmental representative that while determining net wealth of firm, definition given in Act should be followed. It was, therefore, submitted by him that shares belonging to firm had to be valued at their market value as section 7 provides for market value to be taken for purpose of wealth-tax. 9. It was further submitted that for determining market value of 9. It was further submitted that for determining market value of shares belonging to firm, rule 1D should be applied. It was contended that it was case to which decisions of Allahabad High Court are binding and Allahabad High Court held that rule 1D was mandatory and has to be followed. In this connection, he relied on decisions of Allahabad High Court in case of CWT v. Sripat Singhania [1978] 112 ITR 363, in case of CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1979] 117 ITR 443 and decision in case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1979] 119 ITR 258. He pointed out that decision of Bombay High Court in case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N.C. Upadhya [1980] 124 ITR 799 holding rule 1D to be directory and not mandatory should not be followed in view of decisions of Allahabad High Court which are binding. He also pointed out that decision of Supreme Court in case of CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan [1972] 86 ITR 621 related to period when no rules had been framed and Court hold that yield method was correct method for valuing unquoted shares. 10. learned counsel for assessee, Dr. Debi Pal, first placed before us decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) and pointed out that it was case of same group and question related to valuation of interest in same firm in which present assessees were partners. He contended that basis of judgment in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) was that net wealth of firm could not be determined according to provisions of Act and Rules but in accordance with commercial principles. learned counsel pointed out that High Court further held that taking value at cost price was in accordance with commercial principles. learned counsel argued that definition of net wealth as given in Act could not be applied to rule 2 as firm was not 'assessee' under Act. He submitted that wealth-tax was payable only by individual, HUF or company and, thus, firm cannot be considered to be assessee only for purpose of applying rule 2. learned counsel for assessee further submitted that section 7 could not be applied to firm as firm was not assessee under Act. learned counsel pointed out that there was no legal fiction in Act or Rules to deem firm as assessee for any specific purpose. 11. Referring to decisions of Allahabad High Court and of Supreme Court in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra), Dr. Debi Pal submitted that decision of High Court as well as Supreme Court was confined to facts of that case and it did not apply to issue before us. He submitted that in case before High Court question was whether interest of karta partner in firm could be included in hands of HUF, and it was decided that it could be so included. He further submitted that case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra) related to writ proceeding for notice to Valuation Officer. He, therefore, argued that decision of High Court as well as Supreme Court in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra) should not be applied and net wealth of firm should be determined on basis of 'net worth' to be determined on commercial principles and not in accordance with any rule. learned counsel for assessee, therefore, submitted that Supreme Court decision being not applicable decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) should be applied and value of interest in firm should be determined on basis of balance sheet and not by adopting value of one asset in accordance with any rule. learned counsel advanced alternative contention that even if it was decided to adopt market value of shares, only proper method of valuing it was of profit yielding method as rule 1D is directory and not mandatory. For this he relied on decision in case of CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia [1980] 122 ITR 38 (SC) and Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N.C. Upadhya [1980] 124 ITR 799 (Bom.). learned counsel submitted that if rule is held to be mandatory, it will become ultra vires. It was further submitted by learned counsel for assessee that Allahabad High Court has not held rule 1D to be mandatory and what has been held in case of Sripat Singhania (supra) is that if rule 1D was binding on ITO it was binding on Tribunal as well. He also pointed out that in case of Padampat Singhania (supra), High Court did not decide vires of rule as it was reference proceeding. According to learned counsel, if market value of assets of firm was to be taken as per rules, rule 2 itself becomes ultra vires. He pointed out that correct method was pointed out by Supreme Court in case of Mahadeo Jalan (supra) where it was held that yield method was correct method for valuing shares. Thus, learned counsel for assessee submitted that following decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra), it should be held that value of interest in partnership should be determined on basis of balance sheet of firm and not on basis of valuing any individual assets in accordance with any rules. 12. learned counsel for assessee also made another submission that in case of several of partners of firm assessee's plea has been accepted on basis of decision in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) and in certain years there had been no reference against order passed by Tribunal following decision in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra). In case of these three assessees before us and few others in years 1973-74 and 1974-75 value was determined on basis adopted b y WTO and appeals before AAC were not pressed. For earlier years, matter was pending before High Court and for years 1976-77 to 1978-79 WTO himself did not make any addition. learned counsel submitted that as in later years department has accepted position and in case of certain other partners of same firm basis pleaded by assessee has been adopted, same should be adopted here and no departure should be made from other cases. In this connection, he relied on decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Jaswantrai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477. In this case it was held that valve adopted in case of sharer should be adopted as in case of other co-shares and no departure should be made from that. 13. On last point departmental representative submitted that question which was being raised was question of principle and of law and it was not case of mere factual adoption of value but determination of value in accordance with provision of Act and Rules. He, therefore, contended that legal questions raised before Tribunal have to be decided in accordance with provisions of law and decisions of Courts, and not on basis of value which might have been adopted in case of another co-partner. 14. After hearing learned departmental representative and learned counsel for assessee, we find that following issues arise for our determination in this case: 1. Whether while determining interest of partner, in firm for purposes of wealth-tax assessment, it was open to WTO to value any specific asset belonging to firm at market value in place of its cost as shown in firm's balance sheet? 2. Whether shares in Indofil Chemicals Co. Ltd., belonging to Synfibre Sales Corporation could be valued under rule 1D or determining market value of shares for purpose of ascertaining net wealth of firm? 3. Whether market value of shares should be adopted on yield basis and not in accordance with rule 1D? 4. Whether in present cases value of interest of assessee in firm could be adopted on basis other than what has been adopted in cases of some of other co-partners? 15. Taking first issue first, we find that there is some conflict between observations made by Allahabad High Court in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) and their observations and decision in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra). In case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra), it is observed by High Court that Act or Rules do not lay down any particular provision for calculation of net wealth of firm. High Court has further referred to their decision in case of CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1973] 90 ITR 418 (All.) and held that net wealth of firm had to be calculated under rule 2 in accordance with commercial principles and special provisions of Act for computation of net wealth cannot be applied for purposes of computing net wealth of firm under rule 2. This decision though reported in 1983 had been given in October, 1979. other decision was given in October 1977 and it was reported in 1979. However, in this decision question of interest of HUF in partnership was considered. High Court considered question of application of rule 2 and its relationship with section 7 and section 16A of Act. High Court observed that rule 2 refers to manner in which value of interest of partner in partnership is to be computed after ascertaining net wealth of firm, i.e., its assets minus its liabilities. It was also observed that when value of such assets is to be determined, section 7 comes into play and market value has to be determined. Thus, High Court held that rule 2 does not exclude application of section 7 for valuing asset of partner in partnership firm. Court further held that when section 7(2) refers to determination of value of business having regard to balance sheet, it does not mean that determination should be on basis of basis of balance sheet. It only requires balance sheet to be taken into consideration. High Court, therefore, held that any asset can be valued separately at its market value as may be determined. Thus, according to this decision of Allahabad High Court in applying rule 2 for valuing interest of partner in firm went wealth has to be determined by taking assets and deducting liabilities and for their value section 7 should be taken into consideration. High Court further held that for determining value of assessable asset assistance of Valuation Officer can also be obtained. 16. divergence between two views as taken in two judgments i s very clear. Whatever may have been occasion for High Court to pronounce above judgments, certain ratios have been laid down. It is at this stage that we have to take note of decision of Supreme Court in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra). We have already referred to this judgment earlier while narrating arguments placed on behalf do revenue. Two questions had been substantially raised before Supreme Court. One related t o karta's interest in partnership firm to be included in HUF's hands for wealth-tax purposes and second was valuation of such interest under section 7(2)(a) read with rules 2 and 2A. question was whether it was open to WTO to refer question of valuation of one asset to Valuation Officer. This could be possible only if one asset could be separately valued by WTO. Supreme Court while considering second question referred to t h e various provisions in Act and pointed out that substance of argument was that section 7 which enabled WTO to determine value of any asset at market price thereof on valuation date was inapplicable in case of partner's interest in firm. Supreme Court held that this contention proceeded on entire misconception of relevant provisions of Act themselves. Supreme Court proceeded to hold that rule 2(1) comes into picture for valuing interest of partner in firm and for that net wealth of firm has to be determined and for this section 7 again becomes important. Court held that primary method of determining value of asset was to determine its market value on valuation date. As far as provisions of section 7(2) were concerned, Supreme Court has held that even one separate asset could be valued and in this connection Supreme Court referred to rule 2B(2). Under this rule, if market value of asset was more by 20 per cent as compared to value shown in balance sheet WTO can make appreciate adjustment. Supreme Court also held that section 7(2) itself was discretionary and optional. 17. In view of very clear and categorical decision of Supreme Court, we do not find it possible to accept contention of learned counsel for assessee that this decision or earlier decision in case of same assessee by Allahabad High Court was not relevant for determining issue before us. Supreme Court has very clearly said that in determining value of partner's interest in firm net wealth of firm was to be determined, which determination of course is governed by section 7 and rule goes to provide as to how net wealth of firm so determined shall be allocated among partners. In view of this decision of Supreme Court, earlier decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra) has to be held to be laying down correct law. first issue, is, therefore, decided by holding that while applying rule 2 for valuing partner's interest in firm net wealth of firm has to be determined as if it was being determined in case of assessee under Act. For this purpose section 7 and relevant rule have to be applied. 18. In view of decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra) and decision of Supreme Court also in same case of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (supra), single asset belonging to firm can also be valued at market price for purpose of determining value of partner's interest in firm. question which arises in present case is whether valuation of shares in Indofil Chemicals Ltd. has to be determined under rule 1D or it can be determined on any other basis. to be determined under rule 1D or it can be determined on any other basis. market value of any equity share can be determined in various manners of which two methods are generally applied. In case of Mahadeo Jalan (supra), Supreme Court held that yield method is generally applicable method while break-up method is one resorted to in exceptional circumstances or where company is ripe for liquidation. As against this there is break-up method and rules relating to valuation of unquoted shares have been framed on break-up method. case of Mahadeo Jalan (supra) was decided when Rules were not in existence and we, therefore, do not find any observation of Supreme Court on applicability of valuation on yield basis as against valuation on break-up method as adopted in Rules. Here we are concerned with year 1975-76 when Rules were in operation. There is difference of opinion between High Courts on question whether rule 1D is director or mandatory. In case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (supra), Bombay High Court has held that rule is directory and not mandatory. We have to consider this matter in light of decisions of Allahabad High Court as in this case we are bound by decision of that Court. In case of CWT v. Laxmipat Singhania [1978] 111 ITR 272, Allahabad High Court held that these rules were applicable to pending proceedings as well. In case of Sripat Singhania (supra), question which was referred to Allahabad High Court was whether Tribunal was justified in approving assessee's method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to valuation adopted by wealth-tax authorities as per provision of rule 1D. It may be mentioned that assessee had worked out value on yield basis. Considering scope of rule 1D High Court observed that after framing of Rules in 1957 valuation of unquoted equity shares has to be determined under section 7(1), Read with rule 1D. High Court, therefore, held that Tribunal was not justified in approving assessee's method of valuation which was not in accordance with rule 1D. This matter was again considered by Allahabad Highs Court in case of Padampat Singhania (supra) and decision in case of Sripat Singhania (supra) was followed. Here again Tribunal had accepted assessee's statement of valuation of unquoted shares and High Court held that Tribunal was not justified in accepting that valuation. In this case High Court has observed that when any higher authority like AAC or Tribunal deals with market value of unquoted shares rule 1D being valid law was equally available to them and they could not ignore it. Again in case of Bharat Hari Singhania (supra) question was again considered by Allahabad High Court and they approved application of rule 1D in preference to method adopted by assessee which was on basis of mean of values obtained on break-up basis and yield basis. question referred to High Court was whether rule 1D was binding on WTO as well as Appellate authorities while valuing unquoted equity shares and High Court has answered question in affirmative. 19. In view of above review of decisions of Allahabad High Court, it is clear that in all these decisions it has been held that rule 1D was mandatory and binding wherever question of valuation of shares arises for purposes of section 7. We have, therefore, to hold that shares of Indofil Chemicals Ltd. have rightly been valued under rule 1D and plea of assessee for valuing these shares on yield basis cannot be accepted. In this connection we may mention that market value of these shares would be in excess of 20 per cent from value shown in balance sheet even if yield method was to be adopted (as is apparent from figures given by assessee) and, thus, under Rules, WTO would be justifies in adopting market value in place of value shown in balance sheet. second and third issues are, thus, decided in favour of department and action of revenue in valuing shares under rule 1D is upheld. 20. We now come to last issue which rises from different modes of valuation adopted in cases of different partners of firm Synfibre Sales Corporation. We find that there has been no uniformity in method of valuation adopted by department or shown by different assessees in their returns. In case of one set of persons who are also partners in same firm, WTO himself or Tribunal had applied decision in case of Seth Satish Kumar Modi (supra) and had determined value of shares at figures shown in balance sheet of firm. In case of three assessees before us, however, position is different. Whereas matters for years 1970-71 to 1972-73 have been reopened and question of reopening is pending before Delhi High Court for years 1973-74 and 1974-75, those three assessees filed their returns on basis adopted by WTO, that is on basis of rule 1D. In some cases WTO had made additions on basis of value under rule 1D but appeals were not pressed before AAC. In case of Gayatri Devi Modi also same position was there in these two years as well as in assessment year 1975-76. In later years, however, no additions have been made by WTO. Thus, no uniform practice has been followed and value has been adopted on different basis in different years. In those circumstances it cannot be said that in case of other co-partners yield method was being unformly followed. In fact, here we are concerned with matter of principle and question of law and not merely factual valuation of property or asset. In such circumstances, decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Jaswant Rai (supra) does not help assessee. When question of law is raised before Tribunal in particular case in particular year, it has to be decided in accordance with legal provisions and decision of Court and any earlier decision given by tax authorities cannot be guideline for this purpose. fourth issue is also, therefore, decided, accordingly. 21. We, therefore, uphold orders of WTO in all three cases and allow departmental appeals. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. SETH SUDHIR KUMAR MODI