TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (9) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment year 1979-80 ; and (ii) Taking the value of Kanchanjunga flat in the net wealth of the assessee. 3. For the assessment year 1980-81, i.e., in WTA No. 418/Del/87, the sole grievance revolves around the valuation of Kanchanjunga flat. 4. The Revenue in its WTA Nos. 423 & 424/Del/87 has taken the following two common grounds in relation to both the assessment years under appeal : " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CWT (A) erred in treating the market value of the books as exempt under section 5(1)(xii) of the WT Act, 1957. " " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CWT (A) has erred in reducing the value of valuable right in the share of flat to Rs. 3,12,300 fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Vadilal Lallubhai [1984] 145 ITR 7, directed the assessing officer to include the refund, if any, as may be finally determined for the assessment year 1977-78, as net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal. 6. The assessee is aggrieved and before us has strongly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Arvindbhai Chinubhai [1982] 133 ITR 800. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was seized of the following issue : " Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 76,867, representing income-tax refund due to the assessee, did not form part of his taxable asset u/s 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given assessment year is a mere possibility. Equally so is the corresponding liability of the department to refund to the assessee a particular amount. So long as the assessment proceedings are not processed and finalised by the department, the alleged right and the corresponding liability remain in a fluid state. Therefore, even assuming that the likelihood of obtaining refund of the amount may be an asset, it is not capable of evaluation as on the valuation date and such an asset is not capable of being ascertained and cannot be treated as an asset for the purpose of arriving at the net wealth of the assessee during the relevant assessment year. " 7. In Vadilal Lallubhai's case, the question for adjudication before their Lordships of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disclosed by the assessee in his return, are no longer determinative of the assessee's tax liability, because in law, they stand superseded by the assessment order. 8. In our considered opinion the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is more relevant for the purpose of the present case, since there the question referred to (as reproduced above), was the same as the issue is before us. We hold accordingly. The amount of Rs. 4,45,335, which is, in terms, an estimated refund, relating to assessment year 1977-78, which assessment was as yet pending as on 30-6-1978, i.e., the valuation date relevant for the assessment year under appeal as such could not be included in the hands of the assessee as his net wealth. 9. As regar....