P.D. Mulye, J.: Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore at instance of revenue namely CWT, M.P., Bhopal has made this reference under s. 27 (1) of WT Act for opinion of this Court on following question of law: "Whether, on facts and in circumstance of case, Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of Wealth-tax liability as determined by assessment order passed by WTO in computing taxable wealth for assessee thereby including therein liability which is outstanding on valuation date and is claimed by assessee in appeal etc., as not being payable by him? facts giving rise to this reference as per statement of case received may be stated in brief, thus: dispute relates to deduction of WT liabilities in computing taxable wealth for assessee. WTO did not allow any of these liabilities presumably on ground that neither they had been quantified on valuation dates nor had they been accepted as such by assessee. Since assessee was agitating matter in appeal, CWT (A) allowed deduction for commutative liability in respect of undisputed wealth tax only, for determination of taxable wealth of assessee-respondent. assessee went up in second appeal before Tribunal. According Tribunal charge or wealth tax as per terms of s. 3 is imposed on net wealth of assessee computed on valuation date after adjusting debts owned by asessee on that date and unlike IT Act, WT Act prescribed ratio of tax in Schedule and it was evident that by virtue of s. 3 liability to wealth tax got crystallised on valuation date and not on first date of assessment year. Tribunal further held that debt owned within meaning of s. 2 (m) of WT Act could be defined as liability to pay in future ascertainable sum of money. Tribunal consequently held that CWT (A) erred in allowing cumulative liability of undisputed wealth tax only as deduction from total wealth in place of one as determined by order of WTO. Id member of Tribunal in paras 19 to 27 of impugned order have given valid reason supported by authority for deciding said point in favour of asessee. Hence this reference at instance of revenue. At hearing of this reference Id. Counsel for revenue, R.C. Mukati frankly submitted that question referred to for opinion of this Court has to be answered in favour of assessee in view of Supreme Court decision in CWT vs. K.S.N. Bhatt (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 273: (1984) 145 ITR 1 (SC), CWT, Gujarat v. Vadilal Lalubhai (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 277: (1984) 145 ITR 7 (SC) and CWT vs. Vimalaben Vadilal mehta (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 288: (1984) 145 ITR (SC). In case of CWT vs. K.S.N. Bhatt (supra) it has been held that in computing net wealth of assessee for wealth tax liabilities towards income tax, wealth tax and gift tax, which crystallise on relevant valuation date as determined in respective assessment order as liability are to be deducted even though those assessment order are finalised after valuation date. quantification effected by assessment order may be varied as income tax, wealth tax and gift tax case is carried in appeal to AAC or thereafter to Tribunal, and indeed even in reference later to High Court or subsequent appeal to Supreme Court. It is quantification of tax liability by ultimate judicial authority which will determine amount of debt owned by assessee on valuation date. So long as such ultimate determination indicates existence of positive tax liability, there is debt owned by assessee on valuation date even though such determination may be subsequent in point of time, to valuation date. it however, it is found on such ultimate determination that there is no tax liability, it cannot be said that, merely because originally tax liability had been determined and stood existing on valuation date, there was debt owned by assessee. If finding is that there was no tax liability, it must be held that there was no debt owned by assessee on valuation date. In case of CWT, Gujarat vs. Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta (supra) it has been held that rectification of assessment must be treated on same basis as on original assessment of purpose of claim to deduction of liabilities towards income tax, wealth tax and gift tax in computation of assessee s net wealth. rectification merely quantifies true tax liability which had already been crystallised and become debt on last day of previous year in case of income tax liability, on valuation date in case of wealth tax liability and on last day of previous year in case of gift tax liability. In has been further held that it is well settled that when appeal is filed against assessment order before AAC, assessment is thrown open n d appellate proceeding constitutes continuation of assessment proceeding. Even if tax liabilities of which deduction was claimed, were created by rectification order or by assessment order made after date of wealth tax assessment order under appeal, law required claim to deduction being considered on same basis as if it has been made in original wealth tax assessment proceedings. Similar is view taken in case of CWT vs. Vadila Lallubhai (supra). In view of these decision question has to be answered in favour of assessee and against Department. Accordingly, question referred to us for our opinion is answered in favour of assessee and against t Department. reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX v. MEGHAJI GIRDHARLAL