JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue. The following two questions of law have been referred for disposal by this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to hold that the assessments for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 made by the Assessing Officer on January 27, 1987, were barred by limitation ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified to hold that the fresh assessments made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 on January 27, 1987, were barred by limitation ?" 2. The assessee, Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel, was a partner in the firm, Mohanlal Hargovinddas, and had a 50 per cent. share therein. He retired therefrom on October 24, 1963, and the remaining partners were Shri Shravan Kumar Patel and Smt. Ujjambai. An agreement was entered into between the assessee on the one hand and the remaining two partners on the other, providing, inter alia, that notwithstanding the retirement of the assessee from the partnership, he would continue to hold a 50 per cent. share in the goodwill of the firm and for the user of his share of goodwill by the firm, he would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 50,000 per annum. The agreement also provided that if the assessee subsequently rejoined the firm, he would not be required to pay any price for the goodwill. The question of valuation of the goodwill, which the assessee had in the firm was in issue in the appeals. When the matter went in appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) by his order dated September 14, 1979, remanded all the 11 appeals and directed to work out the value of goodwill of Mohanlal Hargovinddas for all the eleven years separately and then to include 50 per cent. of that in the net wealth of the appellant from year to year. 3. The assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal against the said order dated September 14, 1979, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). of that in the net wealth of the appellant from year to year. 3. The assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal against the said order dated September 14, 1979, passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). It was decided on June 26, 1982, by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal holding that the value of the interest of the assessee in the goodwill would be the yield of the asset of goodwill. The Assessing Officer did not give effect to the order of the Wealth-tax Commissioner dated September 14, 1979, and he simply gave effect to the order of the Tribunal dated June 26, 1982. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessment of the goodwill valuation was worked out having considered the yield aspect from the said goodwill. He, therefore, took the equivalent of 50 per cent. of the total yield of goodwill, which according to him, was to be calculated on the basis of profit of goodwill of the share of the assessee at Rs. 18 lakhs for each of the assessment years vide order dated January 21, 1987. 4. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) against the order of the Assessing Officer dated January 21, 1987. According to the assessee, the actuarial valuation of the asset of goodwill was Rs. 2,03,125 vide report of K.P. Pandit, Consulting Actuary. Alternatively, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the valuation of the goodwill should be taken as yield of Rs. 50,000 at the prevailing market rate of interest which was 18 per cent. per annum. It was also claimed that the assessments for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 assessed on January 21, 1987, by the Assessing Officer in compliance with order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dated September 14, 1979, were barred by limitation. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that the value of the asset of Rs. 50,000 of the goodwill possessed by the assessee should be taken by adopting the bank lending rate of 8 per cent. for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1972-73, 10 per cent. for 1973-74 and 12 per cent. for 1974-75 and 1977-78. He also held that the assessments dated January 21, 1987, were within time since the limitation was to be computed from the date of the order of the Tribunal and not the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). 5. for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1972-73, 10 per cent. for 1973-74 and 12 per cent. for 1974-75 and 1977-78. He also held that the assessments dated January 21, 1987, were within time since the limitation was to be computed from the date of the order of the Tribunal and not the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). 5. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the value of the goodwill owned by the assessee for which he was getting Rs. 50,000 per annum should be taken at Rs. 3,33,333 for each of the assessment years involved. The assessee filed cross-objections on the issue that the reassessment dated January 21, 1987, was barred by limitation. The Tribunal referring to the provisions of Section 17A(3) held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Tribunal cancelled the assessments for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 and directed that the valuation of the asset of the goodwill for the assessment year 1977-78 should be taken at Rs. 3,33,333. 6. Learned counsel for the Department submitted that the Tribunal erred, in law in holding that there was no challenge before the Tribunal regarding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessments. It was submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) was on the same ground which is the subject-matter of the appeals. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) merged in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and hence the order of the Assessing Officer is within the time-limit prescribed under the Act and the Tribunal erred in holding that the reassessments for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 are barred by limitation. This was opposed by the assessee and after hearing both the parties, on an application made by the Revenue for making reference of the aforesaid two questions of law, the Tribunal has referred the said questions of law for answer by this court. 7. The question before us is whether the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is within limitation or not. In this connection, the Tribunal, made reference to Section 17A(3) of the Act, and held that the assessment was not within a period of four years and, therefore, it set aside this assessment. 7. The question before us is whether the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is within limitation or not. In this connection, the Tribunal, made reference to Section 17A(3) of the Act, and held that the assessment was not within a period of four years and, therefore, it set aside this assessment. Under Section 17A(3), an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of the order passed under Section 23, Section 24 or Section 25 setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 23 or Section 24 is received by the Commissioner. The basic order setting aside the assessments for the years 1964-65 to 1974-75 was passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) on September 14, 1979. No effect thereto was given by the Assessing Officer till the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the said order under Section 23 was passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). There was no challenge before the Tribunal that the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessment order was wrong. The challenge of the assessee before the Tribunal was only limited to the mode of valuation of the asset to be done by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessment. Therefore, the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and if that be so, then the reassessment for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 is barred by limitation. In fact, the chronological events as mentioned above show that the Revenue did not approach the Tribunal against order dated September 14, 1979, and there was nothing to prevent them from making the assessment. Though the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and that was only with regard to the mode of valuation of assets adopted by the Assessing Officer and it was not with regard to assessment. In this connection, we may reproduce here the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dated September 14, 1979, which reads thus : " The Wealth-tax Officer has not given any indication regarding the method of valuation. In this connection, we may reproduce here the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dated September 14, 1979, which reads thus : " The Wealth-tax Officer has not given any indication regarding the method of valuation. Relevant particulars are not available in the case records, so that it cannot be found on my own. It is, therefore, necessary for this purpose, assessments are set aside. The Wealth-tax Officer must work out the value of goodwill of Messrs. Mohanlal Hargovinddas for all the eleven years separately and then to include 50 per cent. of that in the net wealth of the appellant from year to year. For this limited purpose, eleven assessments are set aside." 8. Therefore, within four years from the end of the financial year, it was open to the Assessing Officer to have reassessed if he so desired. Then assessee approached the Tribunal against this order. There was no other question before the Tribunal except the valuation part and the rest of the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) remained intact. The Bombay Tribunal only decided the limited question of interest in goodwill. It was observed as under : " In our opinion, the annual yield from the estate (i.e., the assessee's interest in the goodwill of the firm) is certainly a relevant factor which cannot be glossed over while valuing the estate, i.e., the goodwill. Accordingly, we direct that while valuing the assessee's interest in the goodwill the Wealth-tax Officer will give due weight to the yield aspect of the assets." 9. Since the factual data was not before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, therefore, both the authorities only directed to do this exercise and categorically recorded that the order will be confined to this limited purpose only. The rest of the order thus remained undisturbed and if the Assessing Officer wanted, he could have passed the assessment order within a period of four years. There was no question of merger because no issue of assessment was decided by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), he only confined himself to the valuation of goodwill. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessment is barred by time. We answer both the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.