ORDER
Anand Prakash, Accountant Member
1. The first controversy in this appeal is with regard to the nature of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (‘CDS’) deposit amounting to Rs. 31,213. According to the assessee CDS deposit is annuity and so the same was exempt from inclusion in the aggregation of assets not being an asset in terms of the definition of the said term as given in Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (‘the Act’) which reads, inter alia, as below :
(e) ‘assets’ includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include,-
(1) ** ** ** (2) in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1970, or any subsequent assessment year- (i) ** ** ** (ii) a right to any annuity not being an annuity purchased by the assessee or purchased by any other person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee in any case where the terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the computation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant ;
According to the assessee, as CDS is refundable in five equal instalments, the same is an annuity, more particularly because a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India was created with regard to the liability to repay the five equated instalments of CDS. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the reasoning given in the order of the Tribunal in the case of WTO v. S.D. Nargolwala [1983] 5 ITD 690 (Delhi). Referring to the provisions of Section 7A of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 (‘the CDS Act’) which provided for the exemption to CDS under Section 5 of the 1957 Act, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the said provision of Section 7A had to be read in its own context and it could not be deemed to have made an inroad into the 1957 Act and made something which was exempt under the Act as liable to inclusion in the wealth on account of the said Section 7A. The said Section 7A according to him, did not have any overriding effect on the provisions of the 1957 Act as it did not start with the non obstante clause. The most charitable interpretation of Section 7A would be that any person who wanted to have the protection of the said section could claim it, but that section would not make what was already exempt under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) exempt as a bank deposit and thereby take away from it the protection of the relevant provisions of the Act. If a certain item was available for exemption under two different clauses, the more correct view to be taken, according to the learned counsel, would be to grant it exemption under whichever clause it came for exemption and not to circumscribe exemption to it is terms of one of the clauses only, more particularly, when one clause did not override the other clause. Thus, according to him, CDS being a right to receive an annuity was exempt under Section 2{e)(2)(ii) and as such should not have been included in the assessee’s wealth at all, and the question of granting exemption to the aforesaid CDS in terms of Section 7A did not arise, more particularly when the effect of the application of that section would be that the assessee would be deprived of the exemption otherwise available to it in terms of the CDS amount. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT v, Yuvraj Amrinder Singh [1985] 156 ITR 525 wherein their Lordships were considering the nature of a policy of deferred annuity based on human life. According to their Lordships, a policy of deferred annuity based on human life was one of the types of insurance policies on life and so it was eligible for exemption under Section 5(1)(vi) which covered interest of an assessee in all types of insurance policies and the expression ‘any policy of insurance’ in this section would attract within its ambit or scope a deferred annuity policy based on human life, it being a life insurance policy and, therefore, unless there was some warrant to cut down the ambit or scope of that section, a right or interest of an assessee in such a policy would be exempt from the charge of wealth-tax. In this connection, their Lordships referred to the definition of annuity as given in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (
… Section 2(e) defines ‘assets’ to include property of every description ; it, however, excludes certain items from the purview of the charge by excluding them from the definition of ‘assets’- A harmonious reading of Section 2(e)(iv) with Section 5(1 )(vi) and 5(1)(vii) would be that while non-commutable annuities are wholly outside the purview of wealth-tax, commutable annuities are exempt under Section 5(1 )(vi) and 5(1)(vii) to the limited extent mentioned in each. It is well settled that when such a harmonious construction is possible and which further the object of the Act, namely, to promote thrift and channelise private savings for national use, the same must be preferred to the construction which leads to a conflict between Sections 2(e)(iv) and 5(1)(vi). (p. 526)
2. Basing himself on the above observations, the learned counsel submitted that when CDS was a right to receive annuity within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2)(z7), the exemption available to the assessee should be allowed to him under that clause and no attempt should be made to take it within the provisions of Section 7A. The learned counsel, further submitted that when one of the Benches of the Tribunal had taken a view, the same view should be followed by remaining Benches of the Tribunal also and for the above proposition, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi [1977] 110 ITR 453. He also referred to the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 7A and submitted that it could not be inferred from the enactment of the said section that the nature of the CDS was altered thereby. According to him, the same meaning should be attributed to a word or phrase which had been assgined to it earlier by a Court and inasmuch as the earlier Bench of the Tribunal had held the CDS to be an annuity, we should also hold the CDS to be annuity. In support of the above proposition the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Debt v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100. He also referred to the provisions of annuity deposit scheme introduced by the Finance Act, 1964 with effect from 1-4-1964 vide Chapter XXIIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’) and submitted that the nature of the compulsory deposit was the same as that of the annuity deposit and the said annuity deposit was in the nature of annuity and was as such treated by the department and was exempt in terms of Sub-clause (/v) of Clause (e) of Section 2. CDS being on the same footing would, therefore, be an annuity and as such it should not be included in the aggregation of assets not being an asset in terms of Section 2(e)(2)(ii) as it stood at the relevant time.
3. On behalf of the revenue, the above submissions were opposed and it was pointed out that CDS was nothing but a deposit of cash by the assessee with the Government under the terms of the statute and the Government continued to pay interest on such deposits and merely because repayment was made in five equal instalments of the principal amount and the interest earned thereon, the repayment of the CDS would not assume the character of annuity deposit. According to the learned departmental representative, the terms of Section 2(e)(2)(ii) had, therefore, no applicability to the compulsory deposit. Section 7A excluded the compulsory deposit from the net of wealth-tax to a limited extent. For the first time with retrospective effect and the very fact that the Legislature enacted Section 7A and extended to compulsory deposit, the exemption available to the deposits with a bank went to show that earlier no exemption to compulsory deposit was available under the Act. It was, therefore, incorrect to say that the assessee was being brought within the taxation net on account of Section 7A. It was a different matter that the assessee could not get the benefit for the compulsory deposit in terms of Section 5(1)(xxvi) because the assessee had other assets to whom the exemption in question had been granted to the maximum limit prescribed under Section 5(1 A). The amount, was, therefore, rightly taxed in the hands of the assessee.
4. We have given careful consideration to the facts of the case and the rival submissions. What is the nature of the compulsory deposit paid by an assessee under the CDS Act has to be gathered from the provisions of the said Act. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act defines compulsory deposit to mean ‘compulsory deposit under this Act’. Deposit has then been defined vide Clause (b) of Section 2 as below :
‘deposit’ means a deposit of money ;
and then Clause (c) defines the term
‘depositor’ to mean ‘a person who is liable to make a compulsory deposit;’
Section 3 of the said Act defines persons liable to make a compulsory deposit and Section 4 of the said Act indicates the requirements of the compulsory deposit. Section 5 of the said Act laid down the time for making the compulsory deposit.
Section 7 of the CDS Act then prescribed for payment of simple interest on compulsory deposit. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 read as below :
(1) Every compulsory deposit made by or recovered from a depositor shall carry simple interest at a rate equal to the bank deposit rate.
Sub-section (3) of Section 7 provided as below :
(3) For the purposes of the deduction under section SOL of the Income-tax Act, interest received on a compulsory deposit shall be deemed to be interest received on a deposit with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies.
Section 7A was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1975 and read as below :
For the purposes of exemption under Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the amount of compulsory deposit shall be deemed to be a deposit with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies.
5. Section 8 of the CDS Act provided for the rapayment of compulsory deposit. Sub-section (1) thereof read as below :
(1) The amount of compulsory deposit made by or recovered from a depositor in any financial year shall be repayable in five equal annual instalments commencing from the expiry of two years from the end of that financial year, together with the interest due on the whole or as the case may be, part of the amount of the compulsory deposit which has remained upaid.
[Emphasis supplied]
To the above Sub-section (1)a proviso was added by the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) (Amendment) Act, 1985 to the following effect :
Provided that no depositor shall be entitled to withdraw before the expiry of the financial year 1985-86 any amount which, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this sub-section, is repayable or payable during that financial year and the provisions of Sub-section (2) shall apply in relation to such amount as they apply in relation to any amount referred to in that sub-section.
Sub-section (2) of Section 8 may also be noted :
(2) Where any amount has become repayable or payable under Sub-section (1), the depositor may, at his option, not withdraw such amount after it has become so repayable or payable, and if he does so, such amount shall carry interest for the period it is not withdrawn as if it were a compulsory deposit, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such amount or interest thereon as they apply in relation to a compulsory deposit or, as the case may be, interest on such deposit.
[Emphasis supplied]
Section 17 of the above Act provides protection against attachment of compulsory deposit. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as below :
(1) The amount of compulsory deposit and interest thereon standing to the credit of any depositor shall not be liable to attachment under a decree or order of any court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the depositor.
(2) The amount of compulsory deposit and interest thereon standing to the credit of a depositor at the time of his death and payable to his nominee shall vest in the nominee and shall be free from debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or incurred by the nominee before the death of the depositor.
6. From a perusal of the above provisions of the CDS Act, it is abundantly clear that the compulsory deposit to be made by an assessee under the said Act is a deposit of money by him with the Government and on such deposits of money interest is payable by the Government at a rate equal to the bank deposit rate and it is the said deposit of money of the assessee which is repaid to him by the Government in five equal annual instalments commencing from the expiry of two years from the end of that financial year together with the interest due on the whole or part of the amount of compulsory deposit which has remained unpaid. What, therefore, happens when compulsory deposit is repaid is the refund of the depositor’s own money with accumulated interest. Repayment of ones own money by the debtor cannot be regarded as payment of annuity by the debtor to the creditor, even if the repayment of the principal sum in five equated instalments. When a person deposits money with the Government under the CDS Act, he does not buy a right to annuity. The right that vests in him is that of refund of the money after the stipulated period and in the stipulated manner alongwith the interest due on the said money. That the repayment is to be over a period of five years after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the deposit is made does not transform the right to receive repayment of the deposit which is the original principal into the right to receive annuity which is essentially of income nature. In fact the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 8 makes it clear that the mode of repayment as well as the period of repayment is contingent on the legislation and there is no element of regularity therein in the sense in which it would be in the case of an annuity. The Government decided vide the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Amendment) Act, 1985 that no repayment of compulsory deposit shall be made in the financial year 1985-86 and so the cycle of annual repayments did not recur in that year. The very word ‘repayment’ used in Sub-section (1) of Section 8 suggests the real nature of the payment being made by the Government to the depositor of compulsory deposit. It is the payment back to the depositor of his deposit of money. To call, therefore, such a repayment of ones own money to oneself by the Government along with interest due thereon as receipt of annuity by him by the sheer coincidence of repayment being annual, would not make the repayment as annuity. As we have been above in 1985-86 even this annual feature was removed by the Legislature. What happens when deposit of money is made compulsorily with the Government is that the possession of the money passes from the assessee to the Government but the ownership over that money continues to remain with the depositor. He never loses his right to receive the deposit of money from the Government. Nor does the nature of the said right gets transformed in the process from one of receiving back his capital into that of receiving an income, i.e., annuity. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 makes this position of ownership absolutely clear when it provides that the amount of compulsory deposit and interest thereon standing to the credit of a depositor at the time of his death and payable to his nominee shall vest in the nominee. What vests in the nominee is not the right to receive annuity but the right to receive the amount of compulsory deposit and interest thereon. Interest on compulsory deposit is treated separately than the refund of the principal and Section 7(3) of the CDS Act extends to it the benefit of section SOL of the 1961 Act. Thus, when the entirety of the provisions of the CDS Act are taken into account, no manner of doubt is left in our mind that the compulsory deposit is nothing else but the assessee’s own money kept in deposit compulsorily with the Government in respect of which the Government pays interest to the depositor and the principal itself is repaid by the Government to the assessee in instalments as prescribed by law. We are, therefore, unable to hold that repayment of compulsory deposit with interest thereon is payment of an annuity. It is also important to remember at this stage that it is not the same amount which is received by the assessee from the Government every year. The amount in question as Sub-section (1) of Section 8 indicates consists of two elements-capital sum originally deposited which is repaid and interest thereon which has accrued during the year, which is paid and the aggregate of the two is not the same each year. The element of repayment of the principal sum would be the same over a period of five years [before the introduction of the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 8] but the amount of interest due goes on changing because it varies with the capital sum remaining outstanding on the given date. The presumption, therefore, that equal amounts are being given to the assessee year after year is also factually incorrect. We have already seen that this scheme of repayment in five equal instalments of the principal amount was changed by the Legislature in respect of the assessment year 1985-86 when no instalment was paid and, thereafter what was paid was the sum repayable in two years. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 also indicates the nature of the deposit and stipulates that a person may not withdraw the amount, if he feels like. If he does not withdraw the amount, it would continue with the Government who will go on paying interest. It is thus not that an annuity becomes due to the assessee every year from the Government on account of compulsory deposit or in lieu of his having paid the compulsory deposit, what becomes due to him is the repayment of his own part of the principal amount and interest due on the amount outstanding. It is open to the assessee to withdraw this amount or not to withdraw the same. A deposit which has all these characteristics cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as right to receive annuity from the Government.
7. Section 7A and Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the CDS Act introduced a fiction of treating compulsory deposit as a deposit with a banking company for the limited purposes of exemption under section SOL of the 1961 Act, in respect of the interest received on compulsory deposit and for the purpose of exemption under Section 5 of the 1957 Act. But for this fiction, the aforesaid benefits would not be available to the assessee for in fact the compulsory deposit is not a deposit with a bank. It is a deposit with the Government and the banker receives that amount as the agent of the Government. There is no privity of contract between the depositor and the bank. Therefore, the deposit in question even though it was with the bank was not a deposit with a banking company, and so it was not in the normal course eligible for exemption under Section 5. The Government wanted this benefit to be given to the depositors and, therefore, Section 7A was put on the statute book with retrospective effect. Section 7A has thus changed the character of the compulsory deposit by the deeming provision for the purpose of the 1957 Act, insofar as it has made something which was not a deposit with a banking company into a deposit with a banking company. To say, therefore, that Section 7A did not change the nature of the compulsory deposit for the purpose of the Act is not correct. The benefit of Section 2(e)(2)(ii) could never have been granted to the compulsory deposit. If that benefit was available to the compulsory deposit, there would be no occasion whatsoever for the Legislature to put Section 7A on the statute book.
8. The facts of the decision of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh’s case (supra) were altogether different. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the situation where policies of annuity based on human life fell within the scope of Section 2(e)(iv) as it then was if they were non-commutable and the question was as to whether deferred annuities based on human life if they were commutable would be eligible for exemption under Section 5 and it was in this context that their Lordships said that they fall for consideration under Section 5(1) because the term life insurance used in Section 5(1) was vide enough to cover the deferred annuity policy based on human life. If such policy was not commutable it would be covered by Section 2(e)(iv) and if it was commutable it would be covered by Section 5(1)(vi). In the present case, we are not faced with a similar situation. It is not as if part of the CDS falls to be covered by Section 2(e)(2)(ii) and another part of the CDS falls to be covered by Section 5(1)(vi).
Here compulsory deposit is one integral whole and the question is whether it falls to be covered under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the 1957 Act, or under Section 7 A of the CDS Act. If it falls under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) the question for treating it as covered simultaneously by Section 5()(xxvi) would not arise. It is either covered by Section 2(e)(2)(n) or Section 5(1 )(xxvi). If as noted earlier, compulsory deposit were an annuity in terms of Section 2(e)(2)(ii), there would be no occasion whatsoever for the introduction of Section 7A, Such an interpretation would render the introduction of Section 7A completely nugatory. It is well recognised principle of interpretation of the statute that one should not interpret the statute in a manner as to render a part of it as otiose or nugatory or irrelevant. We are, therefore, unable to hold that Section 7A is meaningless or irrelevant. The entire rationale of Section 7A being placed on the statute book with retrospective effect was to extend to the compulsory deposit the benefit of Section 5(1)(xxvi) which was not available to it earlier. The benefit under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) could never be granted to the compulsory deposit as it had no element of annuity in it.
9. The analogy drawn by the learned counsel between the annuity deposit scheme and the CDS Act, and the argument based thereon to treat the compulsory deposit refund as annuity is, in our opinion, misconceived. Some of the features are no doubt common. For example, in the case of annuity deposit also there is deposit of money by the depositor, interest on such deposit is also payable by the Government and there is repayment in ten equated instalments of the sum of money deposited and the interest accrued thereon. If the provisions of the annuity deposit scheme had left the matter at this stage, there would be perfect similarity between the nature of refund of annuity deposit and that of the compulsory deposit. But the Legislature did not leave the matter there. The two streams-one of original capital sum deposited and the other of interest accruing thereon which constituted the refund of annuity deposit were deemed by the Legislature to be annuity and so at the point of the refund of the annuity deposit what passed on to the depositor was not the repayment of the original sum and the payment of interest thereon but an annuity. This position would be clear from the definition section, namely, Section 280B of the 1961 Act whereas annuity deposit was defined by Clause (5) of Section 280B as ‘a deposit of money required to be made under the provisions of this Chapter’. The annual instalment of principal and interest thereon was defined to be annuity in terms of Clause (4) of Section 280B which read as below :
(4) ‘annuity’ means any annual instalment of principal and interest thereon payable by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 280D;
Provisions of Section 280D of the J961 Act may also be noted for ready reference at this stage. So far as they are relevant for our purpose they read as below :
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and any scheme framed there under, the Central Government shall reply to the depositor the annuity deposit made or recovered in any year in ten annual equated instalments of principal and interest at such rate as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette :
It will be seen from the wordings of Section 280D that but for the definition of annuity given in Clause (4) of Section 280B, the repayment was of the principal and the interest and apparently repayment of principal would not assume nature of income unless the Legislature so provided. The Legislature, therefore, had to step in to describe the repayment of the principal sum and the payment of interest thereon as annuity. This annuity became includible in the total income. Accordingly, the definition of income as given in Clause (24) of Section 2 of the 1961 Act, had to be amended and Sub-clause (viii) had to be introduced in Clause (24) of Section 2, to read as below :
(24) ‘income’ includes-
(i) to (vii) ** ** **
(viii) any annuity due, or commuted value of any annuity paid, under the provisions section of 280D ;
Corresponding to the aforesaid fiction created by the Legislature to treat what was originally the principal amount as ‘income’ the Legislature had to introduce corresponding provision in the form of Section 280-O of the 1961 Act, which provided that annuity deposit made by a person would be allowed as a deduction in computing total income. Sub-section (1) of Section 280-O read, inter alia, as below :
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under any head of income, the annuity deposit required to be made under this Chapter shall, … be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income assessable for the assessment year in respect of which the annuity deposit is required to be made:
It would, thus, be seen that the scheme of annuity deposit was materially different from the CDS. There the Legislature by a fiction transformed the principal amount into income and provided for its inclusion in the total income and also for the deduction of the payment of annuity deposit from the total income. The CDS Act did not contain to analogous provisions. The original nature of the principal amount could not, therefore, be transformed into an item of income which annuity would indeed be. If the above was the intention of the Legislature, namely, to treat the compulsory deposit on the same level as the annuity deposit, there would have been a change in Clause (24) of Section 2 to take within the sweep of income repayment of compulsory deposit in the same manner as the re-payment of annuity deposit was taken and there would also be a provision for deduction of compulsory deposit from the total income to make the situation equitable. It has not been the case of the assessee before us that the entire refund of compulsory deposit being annuity should have been included in the total income of the assessee and subjected to income-tax. His case appears to be that only for the purpose of the 1957 Act the refund of compulsory deposit should be treated as, payment of annuity. It is not possible to do so for the provisions affecting the principal amount paid originally by the depositor do not transform it into income in the nature of annuity by any fiction analogous to that of Clause (4) of Section 280B of the 1961 Act. In fact it was because of this feature of the compulsory deposit and it not being an annuity and as such not covered by Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the 1957 Act that the Legislature had to intervene vide Section 7A of the CDS Act to deem the compulsory deposit to be a deposit with the banking company and as such exempt under Section 5(1)(xxvi) but for this provision, no exemption to compulsory deposit would be available to the assessee.
10. It is true that the Tribunal has in the case of S.D. Nargolwala (supra) and following that in the assessee’s own case for earlier years, taken the above view, namely, that compulsory deposit is annuity. It has been done by them on the basis of the judgment of their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. P.K. Banerjee [1980] 125 ITR 641. We have carefully gone through that judgment. In our opinion, the facts of that case have no similarity with the facts of the present case. That was a case of a settlor creating a trust of certain Government securities bearing interest at a fixed rate with powers in the trustees to reinvest the proceeds upon redemption in the Government or other securities. After the death of the settlor, the assessee became entitled to receive under the trust the net income of the trust for his lifetime. The question was whether the interest of the assessee in the trust fund amounted to receive an annuity exempt under Section 2(e)(iv). It was in the context of the above facts that their Lordships decided that the right of the assessee in the trust fund was not an annuity for according to then “in order to constitute an ‘annuity’ the payment to be made periodically should be a fixed or predetermined one and it should not be liable to variation depending upon or on any ground relating to the general income of the fund or estate which was charged for such payment.” (p. 690) The above facts have no similarity whatsoever with the compulsory deposit to be made under the CDS Act. There, it was not the money of the beneficiary which was being returned to him in certain annual instalments by the creditor but it was the income of the trust which was being received by him and it was in this context that their Lordships have said that if instead of receiving the entire income, his right was to receive a fixed sum only periodically from the said trust, it would be a case of annuity and not otherwise. In the present case what the depositor receives from the Government is as noted earlier, the repayment of his own compulsory deposit and the interest thereon and the two amounts together may be different from year to year. It will, therefore, be incorrect to say that compulsory deposit is annuity on the basis of the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. K. Banerjee (supra). The judgment of the Tribunal is no doubt of great persuasive value but when above be the setting of the facts, it would not be correct for us to ignore them and to adopt the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of S.D. Nargolwala (supra) for there is no law which says that even when the totality of the facts and the reasonings impugning on those facts indicate a different conclusion, the Tribunal should refrain from taking that conclusion, simply because the aforementioned conspectus of facts was not taken into account by the earlier Bench. After considering the facts very carefully, in our considered opinion, there can be no other conclusion but that the compulsory deposit is a deposit of money by the depositor with the Government which is repaid by the Government to the depositor and that such repayment of the depositor’s own money by the Government to the depositor cannot be treated as annuity given by the Government to the depositor by making compulsory deposit, the assessee did not acquire any right to receive annuity from the Government.
11. In view of what we have stated above, we reject the assessee’s plea on this account and confirm the finding of the learned AAC.
12. The next controversy in this case is with regard to the assessability of certain refund which the assessee was of the opinion that he would get from the Government department but which the department has not determined as payable to the assessee. When the department does not determine a certain amount to be refundable to the assessee, there is no question of including such sum in the hands of the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee is of the opinion that some refund would be due to him in course of time. As and when the refund accrues and arises in favour of the assessee, it may be included in the hands of the assessee.
13. Subject to the above observations, we will treat the assessee’s appeal as partly allowed.