In both these appeals by revenue, controversy raised is identical. 2. assessee has equity shares of Universal Containers (P.) Ltd. In assessments for 1977-78 and 1978-79, revised returns were filed modifying value of shares. According to that, shares were valued on basis of break-up method as per rule 1D of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules'). While so doing, assessee had reduced advance tax paid from asset side and had also taken into consideration provision for taxation as liability. In sum, revised valuation had been on basis of principle explained by Gujarat High Court in case of CWT v. Arvindbhai Chinubhai [1982] 133 ITR 800, wherein earlier decision in case of CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46 had been followed. ITO did not accept that method of valuation while allowing provision for taxation, and deducted advance tax paid in fixing liability. On that basis, value of shares was fixed at Rs. 658 per share. Aggrieved by same, assessee had filed appeals which were disposed of by AAC by his consolidated order dated 9-2-1984 whereby he accepted assessee's contention that shares are valuable as pointed out by Gujarat High Court in case of Ashok K. Parikh. revenue is objecting to same. 3. At hearing, it was stated on behalf of revenue that Punjab and Haryana High Court has in case of Ashok Kumar Oswal (Minor) v. CWT [1984] 148 ITR 620 and Karnataka High Court has in case of CWT v. N. Krishnan [1986] 24 TAXMAN 269 taken different view from that of Gujarat High Court in case of Ashok K. Parikh and that we should fall in line with majority view. first submission on behalf of assessee by Shri Y.P. Trivedi was that when there are conflict of views by various High Courts, one in favour of assessee should be preferred to other. second submission of Shri Trivedi was that in view of decision of Supreme Court in case of CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan [1972] 86 ITR 621 and decision of Bombay High Court in case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N.C. Upadhya [1980] 124 ITR 799, yield method is normally permissible method though in exceptional circumstances, break-up method would also be resorted to for valuing unquoted shares of company since rule 1D is not mandatory. His point was that if shares are not to be valued under rule 1D on basis of principle explained by Gujarat High Court in case of Ashok K. Parikh, then Tribunal should direct valuation of shares on yield method. second contention advanced by Shri Trivedi cannot be accepted at all. 4. It had not been stand of assessee (either before ITO or AAC) that shares should be valued on yield basis. This point was taken up for first time before us. It was stated that assessee could take up this point in appeal in view of rule 27 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as there was no need to file cross-objections in view of total success before AAC. In support of his submission, Shri Trivedi cited decisions of Bombay High Court in cases of D. M. Neterwalla v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 880, CIT v. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co. [1978] 111 ITR 529 and J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616 and decision of Madras High Court in case of N.P. Saraswathi Ammal v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 19. Neither rule 27 can be pressed into service nor authorities mentioned above are of any assistance to assessee. 5. Rule 27 reads: " respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support order appealed against on any of grounds decided against him. " To urge point, as respondent, without preferring cross-objections, it must pertain to ground decided against him by lower authority. In this case, neither AAC. In or ITO had considered whether shares were required to be valued on yield basis or not. In fact, it could not have been considered by them in view of fact that assessee himself did not propose in that way. To contrary, assessee preferred to have shares valued under rule 1D. As question whether shares are to be valued on yield basis or not having not been considered by AAC, point cannot be urged on basis of rule 27. This is one aspect. 6. What respondent could do on authority of rule 27 is to support order appealed from by taking up point, of course decided against him. If it should be said that Tribunal can consider question of valuing shares on yield basis and hold that this method is permissible in circumstances of case, then, by that, it does not follow that order appealed from is supported. It may be that on basis of yield method value of shares may be higher or lower than what it would be as per method and manner directed by AAC. In other words, it is not certain whether valuation of shares on yield basis would be same as valuation under rule 1BB of Rules made on basis of rule enunciated in case of Ashok K. Parikh. It cannot, therefore, be said that by taking up this point, assessee is supporting order appealed from to press rule 27 into service. 7. Turning to rulings cited, they are to effect that in Tribunal's discretion party to appeal may be allowed to raise new point or contention provided two conditions are satisfied. One is that no new facts are required to be brought on record for disposing of such new point and other is that opportunity should be given to other side to meet point. In this case, first contention is not at all satisfied since from material on record ITO cannot value shares on basis of yield method. As rightly urged by Shri S.K. Srivastava, learned departmental representative, not only balance sheet of current year but of many years earlier would be required to know book results. It was also his submission that material is lacking to value shares on yield basis. As we have pointed out, at all stages assessee had been contending that valuation must be on basis of rule 1D and he himself had valued shares under rule 1D and offered assets to tax before WTO. Even before first appellate authority only grievance was in regard to manner in which rule 1D is to be construed, that is to say, whether advance tax paid appearing in balance sheet of company is or is not to be considered as asset and provision for taxation appearing on liability side has to be allowed to extent of actual liability of company of year. Assuming that shares should be valued on yield basis, then there must be material in support of same. For this, material required is balance sheet of company not only for year under consideration but also for earlier year, and actual book profits reflected in account books. Shri Srivastava stated that record before WTO does not contain any particulars in this regard and that WTO would not be in position to value shares on yield basis as record stands. His point was that WTO cannot make proper valuation of shares without instituting enquiry in this behalf. Therefore, position is that in this case valuation of shares cannot be made on yield basis for lack of sufficient data. Furthermore, since assessee himself wanted method of valuation under rule 1D, there is no good reason now to adopt altogether different method. For all these reasons, we are of view that contention on behalf of assessee raised for first time should be rejected. 8. It was submitted that Special Bench of Tribunal has in case of WTO v. C.J. Sheth [1983] 4 ITD 706 (Bom.) followed Gujarat High Court decision in case of Ashok K. Parikh and we should not depart from view taken by Special Bench. decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court are subsequent to decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in case of C.J. Sheth. Since two High Courts have taken view, we are of opinion that we should fall in line with majority view. 9. In result, while reversing order of AAC, we hold that method of valuation made by WTO while applying rule 1D was proper and same is restored. shares shall be accordingly valued for purposes of assessment. department's appeals stand allowed. *** EIGHTH WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. S.D. SATHE