dispute in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether assessee is entitled to deduction of sum of Rs. 23,000 representing 'deferred dower' payable to appellant's wife as debt owed by him in computation of his net wealth under s. 2(m) of WT Act. 1957. This appeal arises out of WT Assessment of Shri Asif Sultan Nathani, assessee herein. assessment year is 1978-79, for which valuation date was 31st March, 1978. In computation of his net wealth, assessee had claimed sum of Rs. 23,000 "Mehr" payable to his wife, as debt owed b y him as on valuation date. In support of his claim, assessee filed opinion dt. 20th Dec., 1980 from his solicitors M/s Little & Co. WTO did not accept assessee's claim, as he was of view that it was contingent liability. On appeal, AAC disagreed with WTO and held that Mehr debt was debt due and existing liability. He therefore, directed WTO to modify assessment by allowing assessee's claim for deduction. Revenue feels aggrieved by this order and has come up in appeal to Tribunal. Shri A. P. Srivastava, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that amount of Rs. 23,000 claimed by assessee represented deferred dower payable by assessee to his wife and that it represented only contingent liability. he submitted that it was not present debt, which was payable at later date as held by AAC. In support of his contention, Shri Srivastava relied on decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT, A. P. vs. Khan Saheb Dost Mohd. Alladin & Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 179 (AP), at pp. 187, 190 and 192. Shri D. P. Bapat, ld. Chartered Accountant for assessee, submitted that similar claim made by assessee has been allowed by WTO in earlier asst. yr. 1977-78. He further submitted that deferred dower amount of Rs. 23,000 was not contingent liability, but present debt due by assessee to his wife and payment of which was postponed to later date. He, therefore submitted that AAC was right in allowing assessee's claim for this deduction. In support of his plea, Shri Bapat relied on decision of Madras High Court in (1983) 37 CTR (Mad) 158: (1984) 147 ITR 278, at pp. 285 and 287 (Mad) (CWT vs. S. Ram & Ors.). He pointed out that in this decision, Madras High Court has distinguished decision in case of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CWT (1967) 63 ITR 470 (SC). On careful consideration of submissions urged on both sides, in light of materials placed before us, we are of view that assessee is not entitled to deduction of this amount of Rs. 23,000 as debt owned by him as on valuation date. legal opinion of Little & Co. shows that total amount of dower fixed at time of marriage of assessee was Rs. 50,000, out of which assessee had paid sum of Rs. 27,000 as prompt dower at time of his wedding on or about 6th June, 1968. amount of Rs. 23,000 now claimed by assessee represents deferred Mehr or dower. In our view, true nature and character of differed Mehr or dower under Muslim Law has been considered in great detail by Andhra Pradesh High Court, in case of CWT, Andhra Pradesh vs. Khan Saheb Dost Mohd. Alladdin & Anr. (supra) relied on by Revenue. At p. 188 of Reports, their Lordships of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows: "Deferred dower cannot be converted into prompt dower by making wife demanding same as it is not debt in praesenti. Deferred dower is payable on dissolution of marriage or happening of some event specified in sianama or as agreed upon by parties. Normally, Muslims in India treat deferred dower as penal sum permitted to remain unpaid with object o f compelling husband to live together and fulfil terms of marriage contract in their entirely. (See Mohammedan Law by Ameer Ali, 3rd Edition, Volume II, page 482). In case of deferred dower, husband is not liable to pay same until dissolution of marriage by death or divorce or on happening of specified event. Hence, there is not question of any payment of interest on differed dower. wife would be entitled along with other unsecured creditors to proceeds against estate of her deceased husband for recovery of deferred dower. She is entitled to widow's lien for dower against properties in her possession with express or implied consent of her husband or his heirs and to recover her dower debt from rents or income accruing therefrom. Thereafter their Lordships examined question whether amount of deferred dower was "a debt owed" within meaning of s. 2(m) of WT Act. After examining various authorities, at p. 190 of Reports, their Lordships held as follows: "This case is authority for proposition that ascertained sum of money due and payable as per demand is statutory liability amounting to debt due and payable in praesenti and such debt must be termed to be debt owed on valuation date and same liability on account of fulfilment of condition subsequent to that. Ours is converse case. Contingent debt cannot be converted into debt in praesenti until event happens, just as debt in praesenti cannot on same analogy be converted into contingent one on fulfilment of condition subsequently." (Emphasis, italicized in print, supplied). Again at pp. 191 and 192 of Reports, their Lordships held as follows: "That apart, deferred dower would not become debt owned by assessee during subsistence of marriage. right to claim Mehr would arise only in case prompt dower as it is payable immediately on marriage if demanded by wife, whereas in case of deferred Mehr or dower, it is payable on dissolution of marriage or on happening of some specified event but not otherwise. Post debt or deferred dower or Mehr, in our considered opinion, cannot be held to be debt in praesenti payable by assessee when properties have been transferred or on relevant valuation dates. assessee either of their volition or with consent of their wives are not entitled to make such provision in deeds executed by them. Such provision will be illegal and not binding on parties and much less on Revenue, debts deductible in computing total net value of assets of assessees within meaning of s. 2(m) must be debts owed by him on respective valuation dates, but not those which are payable only on he dissolution of marriage by death or divorce at any future date or on happening of some specified event." (Emphasis, italicized in print, supplied). In our view, this decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court directly answers question raised in present case in favour of Revenue and against assessee. ld. counsel for assessee has not brought to out notice any other decision either of Bombay High Court or any other High Court expressing contrary view. On other hand, decision of Madras High Court in (1983) 37 CTR (Mad) 158: (1984) 147 ITR 278 (Mad), dealt with entirely different question regarding admissibility of provision for gratuity based on actuarial in valuation of unquoted shares under r. 1D of WT Rules, with which we are not presently concerned in present appeal. Therefore, this decision is of no relevance to us in present case. We, therefore, respectfully follow said decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court, reverse order of AAC and restore order of WTO. In result, appeal is allowed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. ASIF S. NATHANI