This is assessee's appeal arising out of wealth-tax assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80. points raised in this appeal relate to valuation of shares of M/s Eicher Goodearth Ltd. which were not quoted on stock exchange. We have heard ld. counsel for assessee and ld. departmental representative and have perused material on record. first ground is of general nature and needs no comments. In second ground assessee contends that liability of Rs. 5,75,196 on account of proposed dividend should be deducted from assets of company for valuation of its shares in accordance with r. 1D of WT Rules. assessee's valuation date is 30th Sept., 1978 while balance sheet of company was prepared as on 30th June, 1978. Dividend was, however declared on 27th Dec., 1978, i.e, after valuation date. Therefore on valuation date there was no legal liability for payment of dividend which it was conceded by ld. counsel arises only when declaration of dividend is approved in general meeting of company. first contention, in our view, has no force and has to be rejected. Grounds No.3 & 4 are common and challenge exclusion of advance tax paid by company from provision for income-tax for arriving at value of equity shares to Eicher Goodearth Ltd. Under cl. (i)(a) of Expln. II to r. 1D, any amount paid as advance tax under IT Act is not to be treated as asset under sub-cl. (ii)(e) of same Explanation, any amount representing provision for taxation to extent it exceeds tax payable with reference to book profits is to be excluded from liabilities in determining amount of tax payable for purposes of sub-cl. (ii)(e) of Expln. II, WTO deducted amount of advance tax from total tax payable to determine balance of tax payable to arrive at excess provision for taxation. According to ld. counsel for assessee this is against provisions of said sub-cl. (e). He relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CWT vs. Ashok Kumar Parekh (1981) 129 ITR 46 (Guj) herein it has been held that in determining whether provision for taxation is in excess over tax payable, advance tax paid under s. 219 cannot be deducted from tax payable. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Special Bench of this Tribunal in WTO vs. C.J. Seth (1983) 4 ITD 706 (Bom) where also similar view was taken. Tribunal held that advance tax payable as accruing in cl. (ii)(e) of Expln. II cannot be construed as meaning gross tax less advance tax actually paid which stands exhibited on assets side. On other hand ld. departmental representative relied upon Ashok Kumar Oswal vs. CWT (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 216: (1984) 148 ITR 620 (P&H) in which contrary view has been taken holding that tax payable means amount of tax worked out on profits minus payment made as advance tax. similar view has been taken in CWT vs. N. Krishnan (1986) 50 CTR (Kar) 75: (1986) 162 ITR 309 (Kar). Thus there are conflicting views on subject. In this situation it has been repeatedly held that view favourable to assessee should be adopted. Further Special Bench of this Tribunal has already taken view in favour of assessee and we would prefer to follow same. Accordingly, we hold that amount of advance tax paid by M/s Eicher Goodearth Ltd. should not be deducted from tax payable in order to determine excess of provision for taxation in terms of sub-cl. (ii)(e) of Expln. II to r. 1D. We, would therefore, direct WTO to redetermine value of shares of this company in accordance with our finding. Ground No. 5 reads as under: "That CWT(A) is not justified in affirming order of WTO that equity shares of Goodearth Engines Pvt. Ltd. should be valued at Rs. 52.35 per share under r. 1D of WT Rules as against Rs. 28.58 per share returned by appellant." ld. CWT(A) has disposed of this contention as below: "The next ground relates to break-up value of shares held by appellant in other company M/s Goodearth Engines Pvt. Ltd. WTO has worked out market value, following break-up method under r. 1D, at Rs. 52,35 per share, according to appellant it should be Rs. 19.23 per share. difference has arisen on account of exclusion of Rs. 1,70,000 being provision for taxation. In spite of specific opportunity given to appellant during course of hearing, no break-up was given nor any explanation was furnished as to how this provision has arrived at. WTO has excluded advance tax of Rs. 1,69,797 from assets and it appears that it has again been claimed as liability as in case of Eicher Goodearth Ltd. As already held above provision to extent of advance tax already paid cannot be as liability. WTO has already allowed provision for taxation to extent of Rs. 37,800 and no facts have been brought about to show that this has not been correctly worked out. In circumstances, I do not see any justification for deduction of Rs. 1,70,000 which alone is responsible for difference in two break-up values. WTO's working is, therefore, upheld." At hearing before us no arguments were addressed on this point and we are unable to discern any infirmity in approach of CWT(A). This ground will therefore, be rejected. "That in arriving at market value of equity shares of Goodearth Engines Pvt. Ltd. under r. 1D of WT Rules, contingent liability of Rs. 1,71,000 in respect of arrears of dividend on cumulative preference shares should also be considered." No such contention was raised before CWT(A). This is therefore new point. It relates to alleged liability on account of dividend on cumulative preference share. No dividend is claimed to have ever been declared and mere fact that shares were cumulative preference shares would not also create any liability against company till it earned sufficient profits and chooses to declare dividends. only right cumulative preference shareholders have is to have their dividends for entire period before any amount is disbursed to equity shareholders as dividend. ld. counsel did not point out how there can be legal liability in respect of dividend prescribed for cumulative preference shares till dividends are actually declared, This contention, therefore, is rejected. In result, this appeal is partly allowed and WTO is directed to recompute value of shares of Eicher Goodearth Ltd. in accordance with our finding and observations recorded above. *** M. M. LAL v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER