JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, made at the instance of the Revenue against the order dated February 21, 1984 (annexure "C"), of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, though the Tribunal has observed that the question of law does not arise. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/assessee had 60 per cent. share in the firm, Indira Glass Emporium, Jabalpur, and other partners had 40 per cent. share therein. During the assessment year 1977-78, there was a change in the constitution of the firm and a third partner was inducted in the firm having 25 per cent. share and thereby reducing the share of the assessee to 40 per cent. and that of the second partner to 55 per cent. The Gift-tax Officer was of the view that the firm had goodwill and introduction of a third partner in the firm amounted to gift by the assessee to the extent of 20 per cent. shares. He, therefore, valued the goodwill of the firm and taxed 20 per cent. of it to gift-tax. 3. Aggrieved against the order of the Gift-tax Officer, the assessee/respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jabalpur, and the Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax, has held that there was no goodwill of the firm and, therefore, the question of gift having been given by the assessee, does not arise. He, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee, by order dated May 13, 1982. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, and a cross-objection was also filed by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that there was a divergence of views of the High Courts on the question of a business having goodwill. Therefore, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal found that the two views are possible in view of the divergence of the views of the High Court and he dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court. Therefore, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal found that the two views are possible in view of the divergence of the views of the High Court and he dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court. Thereafter, an application was made before the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court and, accordingly, the Tribunal has made the following question to be answered by this court which reads as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm has no goodwill and as such the assessee was not liable to any gift-tax ?" 5. We have gone through the records and heard both learned counsel. 6. It is true that the reasons given by the first appellate court that since the assessee was dealing in glass-sheets and was not dealing any distinguishable article ; therefore, there was no goodwill. It is true that it is a very wide proposition and it cannot be accepted as a sweeping proposition applicable to all trades. It depends upon trade to trade how much of goodwill that firm has in the market. But the first appellate court has found that since the assessee was dealing in a very common article like glass-sheet, therefore, there is no question of transfer of any goodwill and thereby he has factually come to the conclusion that there was no goodwill and, therefore, transfer of the 20 per cent share cannot be exigible to gift-tax. The Tribunal has found that there is a divergence of views on this issue of the various High Courts : therefore, the Tribunal did not disturb the finding of fact and held that when two views are possible--one view which is more reasonable and possible that which favours the assessee should be taken and accordingly affirmed the order of the first appellate court. We are of the view that the approach of the Tribunal does not appear to be erroneous and we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, is well justified that the firm had no goodwill and the assessee was not liable to pay any gift-tax. The reference is accordingly answered.