A. KALYANASUNDHARAM., A.M. These are two appeals filed by Department involving common issues in case of two assessees which are regarding value of shares of M/s Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. Shri F.B Illavia and Smt. Homi Illavia had 125 and 220 shares respectively of Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd., Whose shares are not quoted. assessee valued shares in accordance with r. ID and returned value of nil. WTO, on other hand took value of shares at Rs. 2,25,000 and Rs. 3,96,000 on basis that on 1st April, 1981 shares were sold @ Rs. 1,800 each. Id. AAC in case of F.B. Illavia considered issue at length and considered conflicting views taken by different Courts about r. ID being mandatory or directory came to conclusion that in view of s. 7(1) starting with words "Subject to any rules made in this behalf" following basis of r. ID valuation, he allowed appeal of assessee. Department had preferred second appeal before us as its grievance is value of share as was realised on 1st April, 1981. which was Rs. 1,800 each is pertinent information and which sale is only after valuation dt. 31st Dec.,1980. it could be reasonably taken to be value as on valuation date. assessee filed written submission placing reliance on Allahabad and Kerala High Courts as well as two Tribunal decisions in WTO vs. Sheo Prasad Napany (1986) 25 TTJ (Cal) 297: (1986) 16 ITD 166 (Cal) and WTO vs. Ritu Nanda (Mrs) (1985) 14 ITD 269 (Del) We have considered submission of Department and also have taken note of written submissions of assessee. At outset we may wish to observe that submission of Department appear to have lot of force, as particular share which has no value as per balance sheet there would be none, who would be prepared to pay price of Rs. 1,800 per share, one day after valuation date. This only goes to indicate that figure that would be arrived at on basis of balance sheet would not showing time value of shares. Obviously, assets as shown in balance sheet are of more value than what it depicted therein but Department have not cared to examine issue from this angle. WTO has not tried to apply provisions that are contained in s. 7(2). which provides for revaluation of assets of Company whose shares are being valued. WTO as per s. 7 has two options either to apply provisions of s. 7(1), that is applying r. ID or applying provision of s. 7(2), can value entire business as whole and arrive at value per share. When WTO has to apply provisions of s. 7(2), he has necessarily to follow procedure that has been prescribed therein. He has to necessarily adopt provisions that are contained in r. 2A to r. 2G. As already observed earlier WTO does not carry out this exercise. WTO purely went by sale value and chose not to follow provision that are contained in s. 7(1). From this point of view when we analyse present situation before us, it seems that coverent? "Subject to rules made in this behalf" indicate that as on valuation date WTO is duty-bound to arrive at value of shares in accordance with provisions that are prescribed in rules. tax administrator's duty is to apply law as it read and it is not for him to apply his own subjective views on application of law. This intention becomes clearer by Board's circulars No. 5 (WT) dt. 13th Aug., 1968 wherein direction was issued to all officers of Department that rr. 1C and 1D should be applied to all pending assessments as on date of Board's circular. When Board itself wants to apply rule only or when Board has clearly provided there under all circumstances rule shall be followed then there appear to be very little merit in case before us. Further, we are also bound by Special Bench decision in case of WTO vs. Ritu Nanda (1985) 14 ITD 269 (Del)(SB) where it was held that r. 1D is mandatory and, therefore, respectfully following said decision, we have only to uphold order of AAC that he was justified in applying r. 1D in arriving at value of shares of United Breweries Co. Ltd. appeal of Department is accordingly dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. SMT. HOMI F. IILAVIA