C.M.S. ABDUS SLAM, MADRAS Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, MADRAS

PADMANABHAN, J.‑‑ The assessee parries on business at Salem. The question referred by the Tribunal for our decision arises under the Wealth‑tax Act. The assessment years involved are 1969‑70, 1970‑71, 1971‑72 and 1972‑73, the respective valuation dates being 31st March, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. On 29‑3‑1969 the assessee credited a sum of Rs.25,000 to the account of his minor son Muhammad Abdul Khader. The corresponding debit entry was made in the capital account. The opening cash balance in the assessee's books of account as on the date of gift was only Rs. 1,097.19. The assessee duly filed a gift tax return treating the sum of Rs.25,000 as having been gifted by him to his minor son. The Gift Tax Officer was of the opinion that since the cash balance with the assessee as on 28‑3‑1969 was only Rs.1,097l.19, the assessee could not have made a valid gift of Rs.25,000 and that a mere book entry would not be sufficient to amount to a gift. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the assessee had filed a voluntary return of gift, the Gift Tax Officer passed an order of assessment to gift‑tax based on valuation on 31‑3‑1973. On the basis that he had made a gift of Rs.25,000 to his minor son as on 29‑3‑1969, the assessee excluded the said sum of Rs.25,000 from his wealth‑tax returns for the year 1969‑70. The Wealth‑tax Officer came to the conclusion that mere book entries of the assessee as well as the account of the minor son would riot constitute a valid gift. There was no valid gift, as on the date of the gift the books of the assessee only disclosed a cash balance of Rs.1,097.19. Consequently, he included the said sum of Rs.25,000 in the total wealth of the assessee and completed the assessment accordingly. For the years 1970‑71, 1971‑72 and 1972‑73 also the Wealth‑tax Officer included the sum of Rs.25,000 in the total wealth of the assessee. Further, the Wealth‑tax Officer also included the interest accrued on the said sum of Rs.25,000 in the total wealth of the assessee for the respective years which were Rs.4,500, 9,000 and 13,500 respectively The assessee filed Wealth‑tax Appeals Nos.79 to 82 of 1972‑73 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth‑tax, Salem for the years 1969‑70 to 1972‑73. "The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals for the assessment year 1969‑70 etc. holding that the gift had not been preceded by any formal declaration before respectable persons, but was evidenced only by transfer entries in the assessee's account books which were in his own possession, dominion and control and that consequently the bona fides of the gift was open to question and was not valid. However, he upheld the assessee's claim in respect of the interest for the respective years in view of the fact that interest amount had already been drawn and spent by the minor. The assessee then preferred four appeals to the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. , Madras in W.T.A. Nos.39 to 42 of 1973‑74. The Tribunal after referring of certain decisions of this Court as well as other Courts held that there was a distinction between a partnership firm and a proprietary ? business. It further held that in the instant case apart from making entire sin his books of account which were in his possession, dominion and control, the assessee had not done anything more to effectuate the gift by delivery of possession of the sum of Rs.25,000 to his minor son. It also took the view that on the date of the gift viz., 29‑3‑1969 the assessee could not have delivered possession of the cash of Rs.25,000 to is minor son as there was only a cash balance of Rs.1,097.19. In these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no valid gift of Rs.25,000 and that consequently the amount of Rs.25,000 was properly included in the net wealth of the assessee for all the four years. In this view, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. On the same set of facts, the Tribunal has referred for assessment year 1973‑74 the following consolidated question of law for our decision:

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of Rs.25,000 in the net wealth of the assessee in the assessment year in question is valid in law?"

2. ???????? Mr. K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal and the Income‑tax Authorities committed a grievous error in not excluding the sum of Rs.25,000 from the net wealth of the assessee for all the four years on the ground that mere entries in the books of account did not constitute a valid gift. The learned counsel laid stress upon the fact that in terms of the credit entry to the extent of Rs.25,000 in the name of the minor son, there was a debit entry in the capital account of the assessee. The fact that on the date of gift only a sum of Rs.1,097.19 was available as cash balance in the accounts of the assessee would not in any manner render the gift invalid. For the purpose of a valid gift it was not necessary that actual cash of Rs.25,000 should have been handed over to the minor son by the assessee. The learned counsel further emphasised the fact that every year the interest had been credited to the account of the minor son and that the minor son had withdrawn the same for his own expenses. In these circumstances, the learned counsel argued that the gift of Rs.25,000 was perfectly valid and that the assessee was entitled to have the same excluded from the computation of his net wealth for the relative assessment years.

3. ???????? Mr. Jayaraman, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue contended that so long as the books of the assessee did not disclose that there was sufficient cash balance as on 29‑3‑1969 that assessee could not have made a valid gift of Rs.25,000 at all. Consequently, the entries in the books of the assessee were only paper entries and the theory of valid gift could not be accepted at all. Mr. Jayaraman also contended that there was no evidence to show that as a matter of fact any cash was handed over to the assessee and redeposited to the credit of his account.

4. ???????? We shall now consider how far the contentions urged on behalf of the Revenue can be sustained. The assessee is a Muslim. According to Muslim Law it is essential to the validity of a gift that there should be (1) a declaration of gift by the donor, (2) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. If these conditions are complied with the gift is complete. There cannot be any dispute in this case that there was a clear intention on the A part of the assessee to make a gift of Rs.25,000 to his minor son. The very fact that he filed a gift‑tax return before the Gift‑tax Authorities is positive proof that the assessee had openly declared that he had made a gift of Rs.25,000 and to the extent of Rs.25,000 that he relinquished his control over those moneys and divested himself of his beneficial interest therein. Thereafter, he could not have operated upon the said sum of Rs.25,000 even if he wanted to. This is not a case where there is only a mere book entry. The entire circumstances, both existing and surrounding clearly go to show that there was a clear intention on the part of the assessee to make a gift of Rs.25,000 to his minor son.

5. ???????? No doubt, as already stated, delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee is one of the essential conditions to be satisfied to validate a gift. It has been repeatedly laid down that what is essential to validate a gift under the Muslim Law is that there should be delivery of such possession as the subject of the gift is susceptible of delivery of possession of the subject‑matter of the gift B may be actual or constructive. When physical delivery of possession is not possible such possession as the property admits may be delivered. The only requisite is that the donor must divest himself of his dominion over the property. In the case of immovable property where both the donor and the donee are both residing at the time of the gift no physical departure by the donor or formal entry by the donee is necessary. In such a case the gift may be completed by some overt act by the donor indicating a clear intention on his part to transfer possession and to divest himself of all control over the subject of the gift. As observed by West, J., ? in (1884) I L R 9 Bomb. 146 Shaik Ibrahim v. Shaik Suleman "where a person is present on the premises proposed to be delivered to him, a declaration of the person previously possessed puts him into possession without any physical departure or formal entry". In Abdul Razak v. Zainab Bi 1932‑63 Mad L J 887: A I R 1933 Mad.

86. A Muhammedan lady executed a deed of gift in favour of her son of a house in which she and her son were both living. The son continued to live with her in the house after the execution of the deed. The deed recited that possession was given to the son and the son paid municipal taxes after the execution of the deed. It was held that the gift was complete although there was no physical departure or formal entry. In Ibrahim Bivi v. K.M.M. Pakkir Rowther A I R 1970 Mad. 17, a paternal grandmother gifted property to the defendant by deed of settlement, but property was not delivered to the donee. The settlor and settlee lived together in the house. There was a clear intention to give the property and hold it on behalf of the settlee. In such circumstances, the Court observed as follows: "In the case of a gift of a house, it is not necessary that a donor should depart from the house in order to make the gift effective. If the donor and the donee live in the same house that would be sufficient to show that possession has been given. The reservation by the donor of the right to reside in the house alongwith the donee during his lifetime does not detract from the validity of a gift. If the donee happens to be a minor and if he has attained age of discretion he is competent to accept the gift. It is not necessary that in all cases, the donor should hand over possession to the natural guardian of the minor donee. In proper circumstances, the donor can either constitute himself as the guardian or indicate some person other than the natural guardian of the minor, as the guardian of the minor's property and hand over possession to such guardian if circumstances are such as to justify such a course of action. All these, of course, apply only where there is a clear intention to make a gift and to deliver possession."

6. ???????? When the subject of the gift is incorporate property or an actionable claim, the gift may be completed by any act on the part of the donor showing a clear intention on his part to divest himself in praesenti of the property, and to confer it upon the donee. In Abdul, Kareem & Son v. Commissioner, Income‑tax A I R 1964 Mad. 239: 50 ITR 396 the assessee was a partnership firm consisting of a father and his son. The father desiring to make a gift to his wife and children made a solemn declaration to this effect before the Masjid committee. In the books of the assessee, transfer entries were made on the same date, debiting the account of the donor with these amounts and crediting the accounts of the donees under the gifts. The constitution of the firm was changed thereafter. In the assessment year following these gifts, the accounts of the various parties to whom the gifts had been made figured as depositors in the accounts of the firm and interest was credited to their accounts year after year. This interest was claimed as deduction under section 10 (2) (iii) of the Income‑tax Act, 1922 on the ground that these deposits amounted to capital borrowed for the purpose of the business and that the interest payments were, therefore, allowable. The claim was disallowed by the Tribunal which held that the gifts were invalid as there was no delivery of possession. The matter came up before this Court on a reference at the instance of the assessee. Srinivasan, J., speaking for the Bench observed .as follows (at p. 241):‑

"The short question then is whether in the circumstances of the present case the gifts can be regarded as valid. It seems to us that there can be no hard and fast rule and that the nature of the subject‑matter of the gift must govern the decision. Whether actual possession can or cannot be given to the donee must in any instant case depend upon the nature of the subject‑matter of the gift. It is true that the principle of the Muhammadan Law requires that in order to make a good gift, there should be delivery of possession. Burt the question is possession of what? In Mulla's Muhammadan Law, at page 137, the learned author observes: "If a donor does not transfer to the donee so far as he can, all the possession which he can transfer, the gift is not a good one. The donor must so far as it is possible for him transfer to the donee that which he gives, viz., such rights as he himself has. But this does not imply that where a right to property forms subject of the gift, the gift will be invalid, unless the donor transfers what he himself does not possess viz, the corpus of the property. He must evidence reality of the gift by divesting himself so far as he can of the whole of what he gives."

The portion extracted above appears to be from Anwari Begam v. Nazimuddin Shah, (1899) I L R 21 All. 165.

There is thus clear authority that the question as to how far the possession of the things gifted can be given physically to the dones must depend upon the nature of the subject‑matter of the gift. In the instant case, we have noticed that what the donor purported to give were certain amounts representing the assets of the firm which were taken to the credit of the donees in the accounts of the firm. If the donee should be required to pay cash and effect physical delivery of the cash to another donees, the only thing that he could have done was to dispose of flourishing business, convert it into cash and divide the cash among the donees. We do not think, that the law can possibly require any much impractical approach to the question. The donor was entitled to a considerable part of the firms assets. If he desired to make any gifts of cash, consistently with the surrounding circumstances, we believe that a valid gift could have been made if he transferred to the donee in so far as the subject‑matter of the gift was capable of possession of that subject‑matter. In his case, the idea was undoubtedly that immediately after the making of the gifts, those amounts were to be taken to the credit of the donees in the firm's business and the firm treated itself as the debtor of the donees. This was effectuated by making entries in the accounts following the formal declaration which the assessee made in the presence of respectable persons. In addition, year after year, the donees were credited with the interest upon the amounts, and these entries did operate as an acknowledgment of the liability of the firm as a debtor of these donees and the creation of corresponding right in the donees, to recover these amounts from the firm To all intents and purposes, what the assessee did was to create a right in the donees to a share in the assets of the firm. In the nature of things, therefore, it was impossible for the assessee to deliver physically any part of the subject‑matter of the gift. As we have pointed out, if he had set out to do so, the only solution would have been to have liquidated the firm, convert its assets into cash and thereafter to distribute the assets. We are exceedingly loath to believe that the validity of the gifts having regard to the nature of the subject‑matter of the gift, should be made to depend upon such an impractical course."

The learned Judges followed an earlier decision in Ratnaswamy Nadar and Sons v. Commissioner of Income‑tax Madras, T.C. No.34 of 1959 wherein it was stated thus:

"It is implicit in a credit entry in favour of the donee in the account books of the donor that the amount standing to such credit has been gifted to the donee and has been invested with the donor. Though the entry as such may not conclusively establish a real and effective gift, it is evidence in support of the gift, and that evidence, taken alongwith the other evidence that may be available, can establish a gift if the requirements of law are fully satisfied."

7. ???????? A similar situation arose for consideration before Srinivasan and Venkatadri, JJ in A.M Abdul Rahman Rowther and Co v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1965) 56 I T R 556 A I R 1965 Mad 480. In that case, Muslim assessee to income‑tax who was the sole proprietor of a business purported to make certain gifts to his two married daughters by incorporating certain entries in his account. He debited himself to the extent of Rs.5.0,000 and his two daughters with Rs.25,000 each. Subsequently, a partnership deed was executed, with the assessee and his two daughters as partners. There was evidence of distribution of the profits of the partnership in accordance with the terms of the partnership. The I.T. Authorities held that the gifts were not valid. On appeals to the Tribunal, it also held that the gifts were not valid. On a reference to this Court under section 66 (2) of the I T. Act, 1922, Srinivasan, J., on behalf of the Bench observed as follows (at page 481‑82):‑

"It is no doubt true that in making gifts of movable property, the law requires the handing over of the subject‑matter of the gift to the donee. It must however necessarily depend upon the circumstances of the case whether the actual subject‑matter of the gift should be so handed over or anything equivalent thereto, or whether an acknowledgment by the donee that the gift had been received would not suffice to meet the requirements of the law. We are not very much impressed by the argument that there were only book entries. It is not in all cases that the actual cash is required to be handed over. For instance, if a share in a firm of a specified value is gifted over to another person and that person enters into a partnership, it is not the law that the proportionate share of the assets of the firm should be realised and that liquid assets should ‑be handed over in specie to the donee."

The learned Judge then referred to the decision in Ratnaswami Nadar & Son v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1962) 46 I T R 1148 (Mad.) and Hajee Abdul Karim & Sons v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1963) 50 ITR 396; A I R 1964 Mad 239 and after extracting a passage from Mulla's Muhammadan Law at p. 399: at o. 241 of A I R observed as follows:

"Relying upon this passage, Y it was pointed out that the principle that the possession of the thing gifted must be given physically to the donee must depend on the nature of the subject‑matter of the gift, and in such circumstances, where the subject‑matter of the gift consisted of the assets of the firm, the entries in the accounts, followed by such acts as would effective a divestment on the part of the donor, would be sufficient. In the present case also, we have noticed that after making the necessary entries, a partnership document was executed. In that document, the assessee expressly admitted that of the capital of the partnership, the two daughters were entitled to Rs.25,000 each. Here was accordingly a statement made by the assessee against his own interest, which is entitled, in our opinion, to more weight than what the Department has chosen to give to it. It is further stated that following the formation of this partnership, the partnership was registered with the Registrar of Firms, and the formation of the firm was also notified to the banks. From these incidents we cannot but reach the conclusion that the gifts were validly made, and that the partnership, unless anything can be shown to the contrary, was a genuine one."

8. ???????? In Qhamarunnisa v. Fathima A I R 1968 Mad. 367 in a suit for partition of the estate of one Haji Mohammad Asamathulla Badsha Sahib the question arose whether certain amounts standing in the name of the 6th defendant and minor defendants 9 to 11 really belonged to the estate of the deceased or belonged to defendants 6, 9 to 11. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that the amount invested in Gulzar & Co., in the name of the 6th defendant and minor defendants 9 to 11 really belonged to the estate of the deceased and that the entries are merely Benami and, therefore, the amounts were available for division among the legal heirs of deceased. On behalf of the 6th defendant and defendants 9 to 11 it was contended that the entries represented completed gifts duly accepted on behalf of the minors and that the said amounts belonged to the respective parties and could not be brought into the general pool for division amongst the heirs of the deceased. It may be mentioned that the entries in the books of accounts had been made by the deceased Azmutullah himself, the deceased debiting him self a sum of Rs.11,000 in all and crediting his daughter and the grand ? daughters viz., defendants 6, 9 to 11. Interest was also being credited from time to time to the account of the minors. Thereafter, the credits in the names of the minors were transferred to Gulzar & Co. It is in the question arose before this Court whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the gifts of the amounts disclosed by the entries in the books of accounts were valid. Reliance was placed on behalf of the donors upon a plaint filed by the deceased Azamatullah in C.S. No. 237 of 1954 on the original side of this Court for dissolution of the partnership of Gulzar & Co. It was filed by him as the father and next friend of his minor daughter Gulzar. The plaint contained a list which showed that a sum of Rs.2,350 was due to defendants 9 to 11. It also showed that Rs.15,000 had been invested by Gulzar as capital. The deceased Azamutullah had verified the said averments in the plaint as true to his knowledge. This was taken by this Court to amount to a declaration on the part of the deceased Azamutullah that he had completely divested himself of his moneys and the funds and had given them to his minor daughter and minor grand‑daughters. Natesan, J., stated the principles of Muslim Law, as regards gift thus (at p. 369):

"The three, essential requisites that have to be complied with for a valid gift under Muhammadan Law are (1) a declaration of gift by the donor, (2) acceptance of the gift, express or implied,, by or on behalf of the donee and (3) delivery of such possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donees as the subject of the gift is susceptible of. Learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to a decision in Muhammad Hussain v. Aishabai A I R 1935 Bom. 84 and submits on the authority of the decision that mere book entries in respect of money which is the subject‑matter of gift is not sufficient to support the gift. It is contended that there must be evidence to show that the donor relinquished his control over the money and divested himself completely of his beneficial interest therein so that he could not have operated on the sum if he wanted to do so. Learned counsel points out that for a valid gift under Muhammadan Law there must not only be a declaration by the donor of his intention to make the gift, but the subject of the gift must be accepted on behalf of the donee. From the resume' of facts stated above, it is clear that this is not a case of gift by mere book entries only. There are clear and unequivocal declarations by the deceased of his having divested himself of all interest in the funds and of his intention of vesting of the funds in the donees. There can be no doubt that there has been a clear declaration by the donor of his intention to make the gift and we shall presently consider whether there has been such delivery of possession as the subject of the gift is capable of and whether there has been valid acceptance of the gift by or on behalf of the donees."

The learned Judges after referring to the decision in Haji Abdul Kareem & Son v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1963) 50 I T R 396: A I R 1964 Mad. 239 and A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther & Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax (1965) 56 I T R 556: A I R 1965 Mad 480, observed as follows (at p. 370):

"In the instant case, as already pointed out, not only are there book entries but we have subsequent declarations by the deceased, in Court proceedings clearly and categorically acknowledging the interest of the donees in the funds. It must be noted that the book entries are not in the account books of the donor himself."

As regards acceptance, the learned Judges further observed as follows (at p. 370):‑

"It is well‑established that in the case of a gift by a father to his minor child or by a legal guardian to his ward, all that is necessary is to establish a bona fide intention to give. No change or transference of possession is necessary. The persons entitled in order to the guardianship of the property of a minor are: (1) father, (2) his executor, (3) father's father, and (4) his executor. If none of them is alive, the Court may appoint any other person as guardian of the property of the minor. We have, therefore, no difficulty in upholding the validity of the claim of Gulzar, the sixth defendant, to her interest in the firm of Gulzar & Co. "

The question whether there is in the instant case a valid gift of a sum of Rs.25,000 in favour of the minor son by the assessee has to be decided in the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions. It is not disputed that there are debit entries in the books of the assessee and credit entries in the name of the minor son. But it is not a case of there being only book entries. The assessee has on the date of the gift itself filed a return of gift‑tax before the Gift‑tax Officer. In the said return he had categorically made a declaration that he had made a gift of Rs.25,000 in favour of his minor son. This is a declaration against his own interest. By this declaration the assessee must be intended to have divested himself of his dominion and control over the said sum of Rs.25,000. There is no substance in the contention that the cash balance as on the date of the gift was only Rupees 1,097.19. As pointed out by Srinivasan, J., in Abdul Kareem and Son v. I.T. Commissioner A I R 1964 Mad. 239, it is not necessary that there should be cash balance to the extent of the amount covered by the gift. The very fact that the assessee had debited himself and credited his minor son to the extent of Rupees 25,000 would clearly show that from that date onwards the assessee considered himself to be a debtor to the minor son in the sum of Rs.25,000. Further, it must be deemed that the assessee had gifted a slice of the assets to the extent of Rs.25,000 in respect of his business to his minor son. If it was made obligatory that a sum of Rs.25,000 should be handed over in cash only, then it would be for the assessee to convert the entire business into cash and then to hand over Rupees 25,000 to his minor son. To borrow the language of Srinivasan, J. in Abdul Kareem and Son v. Income‑tax Commissioner, A I R 1964 Mad. 239, we are exceedingly loath to believe that the validity of the gifts having regard to the nature of the subject matter of the gift should be made to depend upon such an impractical course. In this case, there is the further circumstance that the assessee had credited interest to the account of the minor son and the minor son had withdrawn the same from time to time. As a matter of fact; the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had factually found this to be the case and on this basis it excluded the interest accrued for the relevant years from being taken into account in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee.

9. ???????? Before parting with this case it is but fair to refer to the decisions cited by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. He cited the following decisions: Ida L. Chambers v. K.H. Chambers I L R (1941) Mad. 232: A I R 1941 Mad 154; Ramanathan v. Palaniappa ILR 1945 Mad. 500; A I R 1945 Mad. 473; E.M.V. Muthappa Cheltiar v. Commissioner of L‑T., Madras (1945) 13 I T R 311; A l R 1945 Mad. 513; Bhau Ram Jawaharmal v . Commissioner, I. T. (1971) 82 I T R 772 (All); Controller E. D. v. V. S. Suryanarayanan (1978)114 I T R 599 (Mad.) and Commissioner, I T A P.v. Messrs Toshoku Ltd. Guntur A I R 1981 S C 148; 1981 Tax 1. R 1. No doubt there are observations in these decisions to the effect that mere entries in the books of accounts will not constitute a gift or create a trust. However, the factual situations in which these observations were made were entirely different and hence are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further one of the decisions cited by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue viz. Bhau Ram Jawaharmal v. Commissioner I.T. 1971‑82 I T R 772 (All.) supports the assessee and not the revenue. It is significant to refer to the following observation of Pathak, J. speaking for the Bench at page 775:

"It seems to us that it is not necessary in every case for the validity of a gift that there should be physical delivery of the amount by the donor to the donee, and in every case the decision of the questions turns upon whether the modus operandi results in a transfer of the amount gifted from the donor to the donee. We think it sufficiently settled that such transfer can be effected in the books of a firm by making a debit entry in the account of the donee. So long as the entries made in the respective accounts put the gifted amount beyond the control of the donor and result in his ownership in it being replaced by the ownership of the donee, there is no reason why a valid gift cannot be effected through such book entries. We also think it to be established law that an adequate cash balance in the books of the firm sufficient to cover the amount of the gift on the date it is made is not a necessary condition to the validity of the gift. The adequacy of a cash balance in the books of the firm on the relevant date is of no moment when the financial resources of the firm are sufficient and the amount in the donor's account is large enough to cover the amount gifted by him."

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decisions cited by the learned standing counsel are of little assistance to him so far as this case is concerned. The principles enunciated by this Court in Abdul Kareem & Son v. I.T. Commissioner A 1 R 1964 Mad. 239; 50 I T R 396 and A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther & Co. v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1965) 56 I T R 556: A I R 1965 Mad. 480, are directly attracted to the facts of this case.

10. ????? We, therefore, hold that on the fat is of this case there has been a valid gift of Rs.25,000 by the assessee in favour of his minor son as on 28‑3‑1969. Consequently, neither the sum of Rs.25,000 nor the interest that accrued in the subsequent years would be includible ? in the net wealth of the assessee as on the respective valuation dates viz., 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970, 31st March, 1971 and 31 st March 1972. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs.500.

? M.B.A. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered in affirmative.