JUDGMENT
1. All these twelve references relate to different questions but in respect of the same assessed. Some of the reference applications have been filed by the Revenue and some by the assessed.
2. The question referred for the opinion of this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short the “Act”), at the instance of the Revenue is as under :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of compensation for which the appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court was not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessed ?”
3. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for opinion :
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in declining to admit an additional legal ground of appeal regarding inclusion of a sum of Rs. 1,36,400 in the net wealth of the assessed awarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, on May 27, 1977 ?”
4. So far as the question referred at the instance of the Revenue, the decision of the apex court in the case of CWT v. Suit. Anjamli Khan [1991] 187 ITR 345, is applicable. It was held that the value of right to receive compensation on the date had to be included in the assessed’s net wealth. Where the compensation to be determined is payable on a date much later than the valuation date, the value of the assessed’s right to receive compensation can only be the present value, i.e., the value as on the valuation date of the amount that may be determined and paid as compensation in future. It cannot be equal to the amount of compensation payable under the relevant statute. This position was again reiterated in the case of CWT v. U.C. Mehatab [1998] 231 ITR 501 (SC). Accordingly, the question referred at the Revenue’s instance has to be answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue.
5. So far as the assessed’s reference is concerned, the prayer to accept additional grounds was turned down by the Tribunal on the ground that they contained statements contrary to the earlier position as accepted by the assessed. The Tribunal could have entertained the additional grounds and given an adverse inference with respect to factual aspects, if the stand was really contrary to what was pleaded earlier and was accepted to be the admitted position. In any event, that question is of academic interest because the valuation as fixed by the Tribunal has not been assailed to be incorrect by the assessed. Therefore, we decline to answer the question referred at the assessed’s instance.
6. Reference applications are disposed of accordingly.