Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. Both these tax case petitions are filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common questions of law, as below, for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that while valuing the unquoted equity shares, the valuation should have been on yield basis only ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for purposes of valuation of unquoted equity shares, rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is only directory and not mandatory ?". The assessee---Mr. T. M. Joseph, Madras, an individual, it appears, was holding 1, 800 unquoted equity shares in Bengal Marines (P.) Ltd. He valued the shares on yield basis in the wealth-tax proceedings. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment valued the shares on the break-up value method basis under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. On appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Tamil Nadu-III, Madras, accepted the claim of the assessee, following the decision of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (Smt.) and the decision of this court in CWT v. Sabita Chandran (Smt.) and CWT v. Sharbati Devi Jhalani. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, following the decision of this court in K. M. Mammen v. WTO and also the decision of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (Smt.) held that the shares should be valued on the yield methodThe Revenue, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, filed a reference application to the Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act requesting it to state a case and refer the common questions of law, arising out of the order of the Tribunal, as stated above. The Tribunal, by its order, dated September 29, 1993, rejected the reference application and refused to state a case, as in its view, there is no referable question of law arising out of the order, giving rise to the present actions---Tax Case Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1997. The arguments of Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel representing Mr. The Tribunal, by its order, dated September 29, 1993, rejected the reference application and refused to state a case, as in its view, there is no referable question of law arising out of the order, giving rise to the present actions---Tax Case Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1997. The arguments of Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel for income-tax cases representing the Revenue, and Mr. Philip George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, were heard. The said learned counsel representing the Revenue drew our attention to a recent decision of the apex court of this country in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to a catena of decisions emerging from the Supreme Court, inclusive of the decision in CGT v. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (Smt.) ultimately held that the valuation of the unquoted shares should be made on the basis of the break up method under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules mandatorily and no option is inhering in favour of the Assessing Officer to value such shares in any other method. On the face of the ratio or rule laid down in Bharat Hari Singhania V. CWT it goes without saying that there arise referable common questions of law and., therefore, it is, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common questions of law, as stated above, for the opinion of this court. Both these tax case petitions are thus disposed of.