NAYUDU, C.J.: The question as recast by us, that has been referred to us in these proceedings by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Branch, Calcutta, is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circum­stances of the case, the Tribunal was justi­fied in law to follow the method involving the principle of "break-up value" instead of the method involving the principle oil 'yield value' in determining the value of the shares in question under Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act 2. Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, to it stood on the date when the question came to be considered, which arises for decision in this case, was as follows:- "7. Value of assets, how to be deter­mined.-(1) The value of any asset, other than cash, for the purposes of this Act, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer, it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date” It is unnecessary to refer to the remaining portion of the section, which has no bearing on this case. 3. In answering the question referred to us, it is necessary to consider as to which is the correct method to be applied in this case, namely, whether it is the method of "break-up value' or it is the method of the 'yield value'. The former is generally re­garded as applicable /to a case where the company concerned is in a breaking-up con­dition, that is, reaching the stage of liqui­dation or winding up, in which case the en­tire assets of the company are determined on the date in question, and on that basis the value of the shares held by the de­ceased person whose wealth is being assess­ed, has to be determined. The second method, namely, the method based on the 'yield value', is based on the income de­rived from the shares held by the deceased and is normally applied to a company, which is a going concern. It may be noticed that when the Tribu­nal dealt with and determined the amount representing the wealth for the assessment for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, which was the subject-matter of Wealth-tax Ap­peals Nos. 1013 and 1014 of 1961-62, the yield value' method was accepted by the Tribunal and adopted for the purpose of calculation. It may be noticed that when the Tribu­nal dealt with and determined the amount representing the wealth for the assessment for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, which was the subject-matter of Wealth-tax Ap­peals Nos. 1013 and 1014 of 1961-62, the yield value' method was accepted by the Tribunal and adopted for the purpose of calculation. But strangely enough, in the instant case, that is, for the succeeding year, the Tribunal adopted the 'break-up value' method and in that context the Tribunal observed as follows in their order:- "Incidentally it was apparently not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that being a pri­vate limited companies, the dividend declar­ed would be controlled by persons controll­ing the companies so as to suit their own pur­pose, and as such, the maintainable profits rather than the dividends declared, would afford a reasonable basis. We need not notice this point further, since the objection before us is only of principle, about the adoption of the break-up value method. Even in the case cited by the learned coun­sel, the Tribunal has categorically held that the break-up value was undoubtedly one of the recognised methods of valuation of shares of private companies. For the pur­pose of the present appeal, we hold that file adoption of the break-up value was in order." 4. It is not disputed that "break-up value' is also one or the methods for the purpose of calculation. But the point for consideration is-'in what circumstances is this method to be adopted?' Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel for the assessee petitioner, contends that the 'break-up value method would only be applied to a company, which has reached the stage of liquidation and winding up. In support of this he placed reliance on the case of Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 Ind App 255 = (AIR 1921 PC 50). Ghose, the learned counsel for the assessee petitioner, contends that the 'break-up value method would only be applied to a company, which has reached the stage of liquidation and winding up. In support of this he placed reliance on the case of Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 Ind App 255 = (AIR 1921 PC 50). While agreeing that the Board would not interfere with any question of valuation unless it can be shown that some item has improperly been made the subject of valua­tion or excluded therefrom, or that there is some fundamental principle affecting the valuation which renders it unsound, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this case observed as follows:- "Now in the present instance the case lodged by the respondents complains only of the character of the valuation as a valua­tion and does not attempt to impeach it on any of the grounds to which reference had been made. It is quite true that counsel for the respondents, recognising the difficulty in which he is thus placed, has attempted to raise an argument based upon an assertion that the valuation has proceeded upon an erroneous footing." Mr. Ghose invited our attention to the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I, where that expression has been shown to mean dissolution or disruption. He also placed reliance on the following passage in 'Halsbury's Laws of England', 3rd Edn., Vol. 15 at p. 74, para 150 in support of the proposition that the more appropriate method is to arrive at the value of the share as obtaining in the market and not when the business is about to be disposed of:- "A price based on the net value of the company's assets is appropriate where the company has disposed of its business and is in effect in course of winding up; where a purchaser of the share holding would be in a position to put the company into voluntary liquidation." We are satisfied that the expression "break-up' is inextricably connected with the situation where the company has reached the stage of winding up and that expres­sion cannot be applied to a company, which is a going concern and there is nothing ostensibly wrong with it. Mr. Mr. Ghose also placed reliance on (1944-45) 69 Com-W LR 1, Mc Carthie v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation, where the High Court of Austra­lia held that the real value of shares which a deceased person held in a company at the date of his death depends more upon the profits which the company has been making and should be capable of making, having regard to the nature of its business, than upon the amounts which the shares would be likely to realise upon a liquida­tion. Again he invited our attention to 'The Valuation of Company Shares and Busi­nesses' by A. V. Adamson, where this deci­sion has been relied on and this very pass­age has been extracted. 5. We do not consider it necessary to refer to the various English cases cited at the Bar by Mr. Ghose, for instance, the cases of Short v. Treasury Commissioners, (1948) 2 All ER 509 and Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Mackie, (1952) 2 All ER 775. C. Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the respondent himself has advanced the argument that these English decisions or the observations in these decisions cannot be stripped of the Finance Act provisions, under which or with reference to which these were made. 7. We are satisfied that so far as the ap­plication of Section 7 of the Wealth-Tax Act in determining the value of the shares of a deceased person on the date of his death is concerned.,-where those shares pertain to a going Concern, the only proper method to adopt was the 'yield value' method and we think that the Tribunal was not justified in making the assumption that in the case of a private company the divi­dend would be controlled by the persons controlling the company to suit their own purposes and that consequently the 'main­tainable profits' should be accepted as the basis and not the dividends. Unless there was some substantial material before the Tribunal to draw a different inference, the Tribunal, in our opinion, is not justified in doing so. 8. We are constrained to note that although the Tribunal had adopted the 'yield value' method in its decisions in re­gard to the previous years, the Tribunal had taken a new path and adopted the "break-up value' method as the basis of the assessment. 8. We are constrained to note that although the Tribunal had adopted the 'yield value' method in its decisions in re­gard to the previous years, the Tribunal had taken a new path and adopted the "break-up value' method as the basis of the assessment. We feel that there is no mate­rial placed on the record to justify this change in the method to be adopted in calculation. 9. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that the correct method to be adopted in the case and in similar cases would be the prin­ciple of 'yield value' to determine the value of the shares under Section 7 of the Wealth-Tax Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Wealth-Tax Reference No. 4/66. 10. The decision in Wealth Tax Reference No. 3 of 1966, as indicated above also covers the decision in Wealth Tax Refer­ence No. 4 of 1966. Reference answered accordingly.