appeals are by Department and cross objections by assessee. cross objections have been filed late. Applying for condonation of t h e delay, it is stated that points at issue raised in cross objections become relevant only after certain Tribunal decisions in this behalf. It was only after these decisions came to his notice that assessee could and did raise these objections. They were already contested points at assessment and first appellate stage. After hearing parties, delay in filing cross objections is condoned and they are admitted. In Departmental appeals objections is raised against reduction in value of immovable property belonging to assessee at Pali Hill and connected contention relates to sum of Rs. 66,620 covered by voluntary disclosure of assessee. other two points relate to deletion of outstanding professional fees and annuity policies from net wealth. In Cross objections, assessee has challenged these two last points. On 23rd May, 1968, assessee purchased double storeyed building known as Brine Cole from Shri Bharat Bhhosan for sum of Rs. 3,15,000. He was residing in this property. on 1st Jan., 1972, assessee entered into agreement for sale of his property to M/s Gautam Builders. Under agreement said property was sold to M/s Gautam builders for purpose of its development and construction of new building as per plans and specifications approved by Corporation and to be sold to various purchasers on ownership basis. land covered by property admeasuring 2741 sq. yds. was to be transferred for consideration of Rs. 4,93,380 being Rs. 180 sq. yds. sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid by purchaser Vendor as earnest money. agreement also provided for allotment to assessee of two flats; one of 1,300 sq. ft. and another 3,000 sq. ft. purchasers were to charge assessee Rs. 65 per sq. foot as consideration for flat and Rs. 33 per sq. foot for terrace portion covered. assessee was also to be given cottage of area of 700 sq. ft. or there abouts. existing garden of 1,100 sq. yds. was to remain in exclusive possession of assessee. above agreement was acted upon and M/s Gautam Builders started constructing proposed building. There is no information before us or given to us at time of hearing as to progress of construction by M/s Gautam Builders. only definite fact available to us is that building was completed and completion certificate was issued by Municipal Corporation on 27th March, 1975. In between there were certain negotiations between assessee and builder as result of which assessee was allotted four flats on seventh and eight floor of Gautam Apartments covering total carpet area of 4370 sq. ft. There was also another issue according to assessee connected with above. This related to voluntary disclosure made by assessee wherein he had stated that sum of Rs. 66,620 had been expended on Pali Hill property and this had not been either disclosed in books or properly accounted for voluntary disclosure was made to get this sum of Rs. 66,620 assessed to tax. assessee returned value of Pali Hill property for asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 at Rs. 5,96,780. For asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1978-79, Pali Hill property having disappeared and assessee having become owner of four flats in Gautam Apartments in addition to cottage and open land in same compound, value of these properties was returned at Rs. 7,73,050. value for first two years of Pali Hill property was arrived at by adding to amount due from M/s Gautam Builders for 2741 sq. yds. at Rs. 180 per sq. yd. i.e. 4,93,380, value of cottage of Rs. 78,000 and balance of land of Rs. 50,400. From above earnest money received of Rs. 25,000 already included in cash position was reduced. It was noted while making computation that value of 1100 sq. yds. of garden land was to remain in exclusive possession of assessee with ownership belonging to M/s Gautam Builders. For asst. yrs. 1975-76 onwards to value of four flats covering 4,370 sq. ft. at Rs. 125 per sq. ft. i.e. 5,46,250, value of cottage of Rs. 1,23,000, value of land on which it stood of R s . 69,000 and value of balance of land of Rs. 34,000 were added making total of Rs. 7,73,050. value of land on which cottage stood was in above computation taken at Rs. 300 per sq. yd. And balance of land at Rs. 40 per sq. yd. No amount was included in net wealth on account of voluntarily disclosed amount of Rs. 66,620. WTO referred valuation of this property to Department Valuer under s. 16A. valuer submitted his valuation report for all four years under s. 16A. valuer submitted his valuation report for all four years under appeal. For asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 Valuer adopted valuation of Rs. 8.61 lakhs and Rs. 9.30 lakhs respectively. For asst. yr. 1975-76, he adopted value of Rs. 10,25,440 whereas for asst. yr. 1977-78 he adopted value of Rs. 20,54,586. WTO completed assessment for all these years adopting value of property as given by District Valuer. He also included sum of Rs. 66,620 as extra asset to be included in net wealth. On appeal, CIT(A) went in detail into valuation of this property. He found that Departmental valuer has not taken into account real nature of property belonging to assessee during these years. Valuation Officer took value of land, value of building and contracted purchase price of flat. He also took into account deferment land value and benefit of contract on different dates. CIT(A) found that valuation for first two years at best approximated to real possession of properties. multi-storeyed building having been completed in March, 1975 as per completion certificate dt. 27th March, 1975 and cottage building not having been completed by that time, CIT found that valuation given by District Valuation Officer of all assessee s rights, title and interest in property under consideration as on 31st March, 1975 did not represent correct picture. Even though reworking on proper appreciation of concerned agreement etc. at instance of CIT(A) was given, CIT found that there were substantial discrepancies between District Valuer s valuation and acceptable value. In paragraph 45 of his order, CIT(A) has put down valuation given by District Valuation Officer and assessee s Valuer in first two assessment years under different heads land, benefit of appurtenant land, flats, consideration, benefit, cottage, consideration and benefit thereon determent factors. No benefit exclusive possession of terrace was considered for these years. CIT(A) analysed various components of above valuation by Departmental Valuer as well as assessee s valuer and came to conclusion that benefit derived by assessee under agreement could be valued at Rs. 75,000. He also revalued cottage on basis of agreement, land value rates etc., proper adjustments for F S I available and used up was also made, on basis, he revalued assessee s right, title and interest on two dates 31st March, 1973 and 31st March, 1974 at figure noted at para. 53 of his order. For asst. yr. 1975-76, CIT directed that value of this asset be adopted on basis value computed as on 31st March, 1975 with adjustment of Rs. 25,000 and deferment factor applicable only in case of benefit of cottage as construction of cottage was not completed by 31st March, 1975. For asst. yr. 1978, matter being dealt by another CIT(A), CIT(A) directed that value of only four flats and cottage should be taken into account. For this purpose he relied on order of Tribunal in income-tax case laying down that income from four flats and cottage alone should be taken for computing property income. ld. counsel for Department challenging valuation for this asset adopted by CIT(A) for all years has pointed out that Departmental Valuer has given correct valuation of this asset which should be adopted for all years. assessee has not charged proper value for land. Apart from ownership of land and other assets going with it during period of construction of multi-storeyed building, assessee had also got expectation of flats in new building as well as cottage constituting his asset. Departmental Valuer has, therefore, property included in value of this assets these components also. For assessee stress is laid on detailed orders of CIT(A). Departmental Authorities have not even correctly appreciated nature of asset to be valued, if not for all years, certainly for first two years. assessee s computation takes into account amount due under agreement from builders along with value of garden land of 1,100 sq. yds. on which nothing has been constructed at least during this first two years. For last two years under appeal viz. 1975-76 and 1977-78, assessee is owner only of four flats in Gautam Apartments in addition to cottage s well as free land 807 sq. yds. These have been properly valued by assessee s valuer. In respect of free land, assessee is not entitled to any F. S. I. He cannot build on same. normal rate of land in area, therefore, cannot be put on this. cottage is property valued having regard to cost of construction etc. cost of construction etc. On consideration of matters, we feel that Departmental Valuer has clearly ignored nature of asset which belonged to assessee for these years under appeal. assessee was not owner of building which he purchased in 1968. Under agreement with M/s Gautam Builders, he was t o surrender entire asset in exchange for flats proposed multi- storeyed building, cottage to be built and free garden he is allowed to be i n possession though not ownership. Information is not available with us as to exact date when old building was demolished and construction of multi-storeyed building was started. faint argument is put before us that at least for first year and part of second year, old property alone was in possession and ownership of assessee. multi-storeyed building was constructed as per Municipal Certificate of 27th March, 1975. On valuation date, therefore, relevant to 1975-76 old asset had disappeared and assessee was entitled to only four flats in addition to money received for transfer of his old property. On 31st March, 1972, cottage had not been built. On valuation dt. 31st March, 1977, assessee was in possession of four flats plus cottage and free garden. Apparently, in respect of last item, assessee was only in possession, entire land belonging to his earlier having been surrendered to M/s Gautam builders as owner. CIT(A) has elaborately gone into detailed components of this asset belonging to assessee for different valuation dates for years under appeal. On consideration of facts and arguments made before u s by parties, we find that detailed working of value of this asset made by CIT(A) calls for no interference. CIT(A) has also correctly appreciated nature of Voluntary disclosure made by assessee specifically endorsing fact that sum of Rs. 66,620 disclosed by assessee represented extra amounts invested by him by way of repairs, modifications etc. to old house at Pali Hill. In view of change in nature of this property from double storeyed building purchased by assessee, maintained, modified etc. by him during years relevant for years under appeal and against background of voluntary disclosure made, commissioner has correctly directed that no extra asset representing voluntarily disclosed amount should be included in net wealth. On this point, therefore, we confirm order of CIT(A). WTO included for these years under appeal of outstanding professional fees as assets. On appeal, CIT(A) rejected assessee s claim that asset was without any value. He estimated market value of this assets viz. professional fees as 50 per cent of outstanding as disclosed by assessee. learned Departmental counsel has pointed out that full value of professional fees are to be included and there was no justification for reducing its value by 50 per cent. In first place, professional amounts outstanding were agreed to between parties. No case of dispute has been made out by assessee. full details of outstanding amounts are available. At any rate this can be computed by assessee. This is not asset on which discount can be made or claimed. No point has been made out that t h e professional fees expected by assessee is subject to any reduction, liability or non-realiability. Reliance is placed on decision in case of Dipti Kumar Basu vs. CWT (1976) 105 ITR 450 (Cal) and latest decision of Supreme Court in case of CWT vs. Vyasyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (1985) 45 CTR (SC) 217: (1985) 152 ITR 454 (SC) which completely lays at rest any controversy on point of assessablitity of outstanding fees in case of professional maintaining accounts on cash basis. For assessee, it is pointed out that even though certain agreements have been made or entered into far outstanding fees, some of them are payable only after date. Some of them are payable only after date. Some of them are subject to difficulties of recovery on even discount by payer. It connote be stated also as matter of certainty that entire amount contracted to be paid will ultimately be realised. If accounts were maintained on mercantile system, there would be question of taking these amounts into account on basis of accrual proper adjustments being made for bad debts, non-recovery etc. Where accounts are maintained on cash basis, amounts recovered have already been included in net wealth. outstanding fees cannot be regarded as having accrued to assessee, since system of accounting does not justify this. assessee has only, therefore, right to receive in vague manner receipts for professional work done by him which may be realisable may be recovered or may not be. It was, therefore, primarily incorrect realisable may be recovered or may not be. It was, therefore, primarily incorrect to include entire amount even after decision of Supreme Court. Tribunal decision have held these amounts non-taxable in their entirety. Even if they are held taxable in view of risk of recovery their unsecured nature etc. no amount in excess of estimated fraction can be included in that net wealth. Supreme Court has laid to rest any controversy as to assessability of this amount. decision does not, however, lay down any hard and fast rule that entire amount either billed by assessee or regarded by him as due to him can be treated as asset of assessee. Each outstanding professional fees amount has to be evaluated for purpose of inclusion in net wealth with reference to date of payment, security for payment, chance of recovery in case of unsecured amount etc. As it is complete details not being available, as estimate for inclusion in net wealth of this asset has to be made. CIT(A) has made estimate at 50 per cent of these outstanding. Considering circumstances, it cannot be said it is erroneous estimate. No interference is called for with his order on this point. assessee received part of his remuneration from producers for whom he worked, in form of annuity policies. Under these policies, producer took out single premium life policy from LIC on life of assessee. Under terms of policies, payments were to be made of certain annuities, payment to start after expiry of 10 years from date on which annuity vested. Accordingly, assessee was to receive annuity for specific periods after expiry of prescribed period of 10 years. assessee did not include any value for this assets or treat it asset for purpose of wealth. WTO worked out present of te annuity policies and included it in net wealth. Thus additions of Rs. 10,93,200 for 1973-74 and Rs. 13,77,400 were made for asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1977-78. On appeal, CIT(A) held that though annuity policies have to be included as assets, method of valuation adopted by WTO was incorrect According to him proper method to evaluate fair market value of these policies would be taken 10 per cent of total amount to be received under policy till date of vesting provided in policy and 15 per cent after such date where connotation is permitted. Department has challenged this decision of CIT(A). In cross objections assessee has claimed that in light of certain decisions of Tribunal value of annuity policies is not at all to be included in net wealth. Ld. counsel for Department apart from stressing points made out earlier and also relying on decision of Supreme Court in CWT vs. Vyasyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (1985) 152 ITR 454 (SC) on alalogical basis has referred to decisions of Tribunal in WTA No. 2574(Bom)/1983 dt. 30th June, 1985 in case of Shri Rajendrakumar Tuli and WTA No. 2573/Bom/1983 dt. 30th June, 1985 in case of Shri Devanand to support Department s case. Reliance is also placed on decision of Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (1984) 19 TTJ (Bom) 198 (SB): (1984) 8 ITD 296 (Bom) to support includibility of entire present value of annuities in net wealth. ld. counsel further has relied on decision in case of Ahmed G. H., Ariff & Ors. vs. CWT (1970) 76 ITR 471 (SC) and alternatively on case of Pandit Laxmi Kant Jha vs. CWT 1973 CTR (SC) 260: (1973) 90 ITR 97 (SC). agreements entered into by producers and LIC indicate, according to learned counsel that assessee is beneficiary and would be entitled to guaranteed surrender value, assessee could recover part of policy amount after period, amount goes to him as beneficiary and to its legal representatives and above all as far as producer is concerned entire amount has been deposited with LIC. For assessee it is pointed out that policies in all these cases cannot be surrendered. Communication is also not possible. decision in Ahmed G. H. Ariff & Ors. vs. CWT (1970) 76 ITR 471 (SC) does not apply to this case. It on contrary says that receipts thereunder are not annuities. There is no justification for treating these annuities as representing right to compensation and not as annuities at all. In light of decision of Supreme Court in CWT vs. Vyasyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (1985) 45 CTR (SC) 217: (1985) 152 ITR 454 (SC) (supra) and also in wake of our decision in ITO vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (1984) 8 ITD 296 (Bom). It would not be proper to hold that property in annuity does not belong to assessee. Normally, therefore, they are includible as assets in net wealth. On perusal of policies, however, we find that assessee is entitled to only annuity payments on specified dates. He has no right of surrendering policy and receiving any present amount on same. policies also preclude commutation of annuities either by assessee or even by producers who purchased it. In fact, producer has no right in policy after it is purchased by paying single premium. In case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. Tribunal held that whole packet representing annuities received on various dates would constitute receipt in hands of recipient as receipt in kind and hence would be income in hands of recipient applying that decision packet representing annuities could certainly be regarded as asset belonging to assessee. In other words, that assessee received from producer could because producer himself has purchased on annuity for assessee, be regarded as annuity purchased by assessee himself from his receipts in kind. But even this does not make policy amounts or annuities includible in net wealth in view of specific prohibition in s. 2(e)(iv) of WT Act. policies specifically provide against commutation. Even if annuities are treated as representing amounts belonging to assessee their preclusion from commutation bring them within exemption of s. 2(e)(iv). This point seems not be have been considered in other decisions cited by Department. nature of policies in these cases are not known. Those decisions, therefore, do not help Department. entire value of policies, therefore, has to be deleted from wealth tax assessment for all years. appeals are dismissed. cross objections are partly allowed. *** EIGHT WEALTH TAX OFFICER v. JEETENDRA KAPOOR