This appeal by assessee is directed against order passed by CWT under s. 25(2) of WT Act, 1957. assessee acquired one-third share of flat at 127 Jolly Make Chamber No. 11, Bombay, which was let out on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000 and, therefore, assessee's share of rental income was Rs. 2,000 per month. assessee paid off Rs. 50,686 in Nov., 1975 for acquiring said flat. ownership of flat was not transferred by execution or registration of sale deed. WTO while making assessment, included Rs. 50,686 in net wealth of assessee being advance against purchases of Bombay flat. CWT was of opinion that assessment so made by WTO was erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue inasmuch as WTO failed to determine value of Bombay flat on basis of rental income. He, therefore, initiated proceedings under s. 25(2) of WT Act and issued show cause notice in reply to which assessee contended that since assessee had not become owner of property WTO had not done anything wrong in not including value of this property in net wealth of assessee on basis of rental income. It was urged that flat in question being immovable property should be transferred by execution and registration of sale deed and unless this was done assessee could not be said to be owner of flat in view of decision of Delhi High Court in case of Addl. CIT vs. J.K. Dec Costa (1982) 25 CTR (Del) 224: (1982) (Del) 133 ITR 7. Alternatively, it was urged that value of flat should be determined on rental basis by allowance of outgoings by way of society charges, municipal tax. etc. CWT by interpreting ss. 2(E) and 2(m) of Act as also following decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom) rejected assessee's contention and determined value of assessee's share in flat at Rs. 1,40,600. In doing so C W T allowed deduction by way of society charges, municipal tax, statutory repairs, etc., to arrive at net annual value. He also allowed deduction at 5 per cent on account of jointness in ownership of flat and applied multiplying factor of 100. Hence this appeal by assessee. Before us, it was contended by ld. Counsel for assessee that provisions of s. 25(2) of Act had no application to facts of case inasmuch as WTO had not committed any error in determining value of assessee's interest in flat in question. He relied on decision of Supreme Court in case of CWT vs. Biswanath Chatterjee & Ors. 1976 CTR (SC) 266: (1976) 103 ITR 536 (SC) wherein it has been held that under s. 3 r/w s. 2(m) of WT Act, 1957 liability to wealth tax arises out of ownership of assets, and not otherwise. Mere possession or joint possession unaccompanied by right to, or ownership of, property would therefore, not be property within definition of net wealth, for it would not then be asset "belonging" to assessee. He also relied on decision of Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 637 (Cal) for proposition that unless immovable property is transferred by execution of registration of deed of sale transferee could not claim to be owner of said property and, accordingly, transferee could not be brought under purview of taxation. He also alternatively urged that value of assessee's interest in flat so determined by CWT was not in accordance with law. ld. Departmental representative, on other band highlighted reasons given by CWT for invoking provisions of s. 25(2) of Act and determining value of assessee's interest in flat at Bombay. We have considered rival submissions and also facts on record. There is no dispute about fact that assessee paid Rs. 50,686 in November, 1975 for acquiring one-third share of flat at 127, Jolly Makaer Chamber No. II, Nariman Point, Bombay. It is also admitted fact that ownership of flat was not transferred to assessee by owner by execution or registration of deed of sale. Bearing in mind aforesaid facts it has to be decided whether or not assessee is liable to pay wealth tax on her share of value of flat. Supreme Court in case of S.G. Mercantile Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 8: (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) has held that liability to tax under s. 9 of Indian IT Act, 1922, is of owner of buildings or lands appurtenant thereto. In case assessee is owner of buildings or lands appurtenant thereto he would be liable to pay income-tax under s. 9 of Indian IT Act, 1922. Then again Supreme Court in case of Bishwanath Chatterjee & Ors. (Supra) has held that under s. 2(m) of WT Act liability to wealth tax arises out of ownership of asset, and not otherwise. Mere possession or joint possession unaccompanied by right to, or ownership of, property would, therefore, not be property within definition of net wealth, for it would not then be asset "belonging" to assessee. It is true that possession of flat was delivered to assessee along with right to let it out, but liability to tax does not depend on power of owner of let property and it also does not depend on capacity of owner to receive bona fide annual value of property. This view has been taken by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd. (1976) 102 499 (Bom). Thus even though purchaser is put in possession of immovable property with all other rights incidental thereto, in absence of registered sale deed transferee cannot be regarded as owner. Reference may be made to decision of Calcutta High Court in case of S.B. (House & Land) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 785 (Cal) wherein it has been held that where certain valuable right or rights in respect of property is or are not parted with by transferor by deed of assignment ownership of such property still remains vested in transferor. In short, it may be stated that ownership does not change until registered sale deed is executed by vendor therefor even if physical possession is given on basis of bona fide annual value of house property. Viewed thus we would hold that WTO had not done anything wrong in not including actual value of assessee's share in flat at Bombay in her net wealth. Accordingly it has to be held that CWT was wrong in invoking provisions of s. 25(2) of Act in instant case. Accordingly such order of CWT is cancelled. In view of observations that we have made above we do not consider it necessary to go into reasonableness of value of assessee's share in flat at Bombay. appeal by assessee succeeds and is allowed. *** SMT. DAMYANTI DEVI v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER