This appeal by assessee is directed against order of AAC relating to asst. yr. 1981-82. first ground is that AAC has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding order of WTO in not allowing exemption under s. 5(1)(i) of WT Act as assessee was holding property of late Shri Radhe Lal as executor of Will under trust for public purposes of charitable and religious nature. Similar issue came up for consideration before, Tribunal in case of assessee himself in ITR No. 510 of 1984 and vide our order of even date we have held that no charitable trust had come into being. For detailed reasons given therein, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal. second ground is connected with first ground and, therefore, it calls for no separate consideration. third ground is that amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,07,404 admittedly received on 20th May, 1981 could not form part of wealth of assessee as on valuation date viz 31st March, 1981 relevant to asst. yr. 1981-82. In second ground of appeal it is stated that in any case, enhancement of compensation was in dispute before High Court which was not free from hazards of litigation and, therefore, inclusion of amount for purposes of wealth-tax at Rs. 607,404 was highly excessive. fifth ground is that AAC has further erred in enhancing amount of compensation by Rs. 8,48,648 which was awarded to appellant much after valuation date ignoring hazards of litigation as on valuation date. In order to appreciate issue involved, it would be necessary to state in brief facts of case. deceased Shri Radhe Lal owned certain agricultural lands within municipal limits. These were acquired by Land Acquisition Collector, Haryana Govt. in 1973 for which compensation of Rs. 1,82,953 was awarded by him on 21st Sept., 1973. assessee was not satisfied with amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. He, therefore, moved Addl. Distt. Judge who awarded enhanced compensation vide his order dt. 29th April, 1980. In pursuance of this order, assessee received enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,07,404 including interest and solatium on 20th May, 1981 which date falls after valuation date being 31st March, 1981. WTO included amount of compensation of Rs. 6,07,404 in net wealth of assessee with reference to valuation date of 31st March, 1981 as enhanced compensation was awarded by Addl. District Judge on 29th April, 1980 which date falls before valuation date relevant to assessment year under appeal. This was contested in appeal before AAC. AAC not only confirmed inclusion of amount of compensation of Rs. 6,07,404 in net wealth of assessee but also enhanced assessment by further amount of Rs. 8,48,640. facts relating to enhancement are like this. Apart from enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,07,404 received by assessee on 20th May, 1981 as result of order of Addl. District Judge dt. 29th April, 1980, assessee received further enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,48,640 on 19th April, 1982 in pursuance of order dt. 29th April, 1980 of Addl. District Judge. This amount was not included by WTO in net wealth of assessee though he had included amount of Rs. 6,07,404 in net wealth of assessee on basis of order of Addl. District Judge dt. 29th April, 1980. AAC was, therefore, of view that amount of Rs. 5,48,640 which was received by assessee on 19th April, 1982 had also become due to assessee under order of Addl. District Judge dt. 29th April, 1980. He, therefore, included this amount also in net wealth of assessee by way of enhancement. AAC further noticed that assessee as well as Government of Haryana had gone in appeal further to High Court against amount of compensation awarded by Addl. District Judge. Hon ble High Court vide its order dt. 30 July, 1982 had awarded further enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,00,268 including solatium and interest. This amount had also been received by assessee on 7th June, 1983, Relying on judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai vs. Asstt. CED (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 356: (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC) AAC held that right to revise additional compensation was valuable right and taking into consideration enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,00,268 awarded by High Court and hazards of litigation he estimated value of enhanced compensation at Rs. 3,00,000 which was also included in net wealth of assessee with reference to valuation date 31st March, 1981. Thus AAC enhanced net wealth by sum of Rs. 8,48,640 (Rs. 5,48,640 + Rs. 3,00,000) in addition to confirming addition of Rs. 6,07,404 made by WTO. It is against these additions of Rs. 6,07,404 and Rs. 8,48,640 that assessee has come in appeal before Tribunal. submission by ld. counsel for assessee was that even though Addl. District Judge had awarded compensation vide his order dt. 29th April, 1980, but it did not become wealth of assessee till it was actually received on 20th May, 1981 and 19th April, 1982. He further contended that right to receive enhanced compensation had not crystallised in as much as both assessee and Govt. were in appeal before High Court. He further urged that judgment of High Court enhancing compensation by further amount of Rs. 4,00,268 was much later on 3rd July, 1982 against which payment was received only on 7th June, 1983. It was, therefore, urged that even right to receive compensation was not there in respect of this amount also. He, therefore, urged that AAC was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 607,404 and also enhancing assessment further by sum of Rs. 8,48,640. ld. departmental representative, on other hand, has contended that stand taken by assessee is contradictory in as much as in income-tax proceedings submission on behalf of assessee was that amount of interest which was awarded on additional compensation right from date of compensation was includible in various years to which interest pertained and not on valuation dates of orders of higher Courts or dates of payment while in wealth-tax proceedings, contrary submissions have been made to say that it did not become due to assessee on valuation dates prior to dates of receipt of payments and conclusions of litigation. He further urged that issue was resolved by judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai vs. Asstt. CED (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 356: (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC) under which right to receive compensation being asset within meaning of s. 2(e) of WT Act was valuable right and, therefore, its value was includible in net wealth of assessee. He, therefore, supported order of AAC. We have carefully considered rival submissions. issue stands settled by Hon ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC) (supra) where it has been held that extra compensation, awarded by civil Court was liable to variation in appeals pending before High Court and s u c h extra compensation together with compensation awarded by Collector could not be regarded as proper valuation of right to compensation as on date of death of deceased. It has also been held by Hon ble Supreme Court that it is duty of assessing authority to evaluate property (the right to receive compensation at market value on date of relevant notification) as on relevant date or valuation date under WT Act. It is admitted fact that Addl. District Judge enhanced amount of compensation vide his order dt. 29th April, 1980 which date falls before valuation date 31st March, 1981 relevant to asst. yr. 1981-82 under appeal. As result of this award, assessee received two amounts of Rs. 6,87,404 on 20th May, 1981 and Rs. 5,48,640 on 19th April, 1981. These two amounts as noted earlier also include interest awarded by Addl. District Judge on enhanced compensation. Copy of order of Addl District Judge has not been filed in paper book, but amount of interest is generally awarded upto date of payment. It, therefore, follows that these two amounts include interest even for period 1st April, 1981 to 20th May, 1981, in relation to first payment and from 1st April, 1981 to 19th April, 1982 in relation to second payment. amount of interest in relation to period after 31st March, 1981 being valuation date had not become due at all. Such amount has, therefore, to be excluded from two amounts of Rs. 6,07,404 and Rs. 5,48,640. As noted above, amount of enhanced compensation awarded by Addl. District Judge on 29th April, 1980 was not final as it was challenged in appeal by both parties before Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Therefore, on valuation date viz. 31st March, 1981 only right to receive additional compensation was liable to be included in net wealth of assessee and not amount of compensation received as such. value of right to receive compensation was to be done taking into consideration hazards of litigation etc. Till decision of High Court in appeals by both parties was available, amount of compensation awarded by Addl. District Judge was in fluid state. It could be fixed at amount enhanced by Addl. District Judge or enhanced or even reduced. High Court has given its judgment on 30th July, 1982 i.e. 16 months after valuation date being 31st March, 1981. During course of hearing of appeal it was admitted by ld. counsel for assessee that no further appeals were filed to Supreme Court by either of parties. amount of compensation has, therefore, become final. final enhanced compensation is now available with us which will have to be taken into consideration for purposes of fixing value of right to receive compensation on valuation date. enhanced compensation received by assessee which is final is at Rs. 15,56,312 (6,07,404 + 5,48,640 + 4,00,268) as reduced by amount of interest included therein for periods 1st Sept., 1981 to dates of payment of enhanced compensation being 20th May, 1981, 14th April, 1982 and 7th June, 1983. We have already noted that it took 16 months after valuation date being 31st March, 1981 to reach finality after judgment of High Court. hazards of litigation have therefore, to be taken into account for this period of 16 months. There may be expenditure on litigation during this period though no information for same has been furnished before us by ld. counsel for assessee. payment of additional compensation awarded is also deferred to following dates 20th May, 1981 to 7th June, 1983. If amount of enhanced compensation was available on valuation date, assessee would have invested same for earning further income. Working backward from amount of final compensation, value of right to receive compensation will have to be reduced taking into consideration rate of interest on borrowings. Allowance for uncertainty of amount of final compensation has also to be taken into consideration. For fixing value of right to receive compensation actual dates of payment as also period of 16 months in reaching finality and hazards of litigation, uncertainty etc. have to be taken into consideration. AAC has given allowance for such contingencies at Rs. 1,00,268 against enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,00,268 awarded by Hon ble High Court. This, in our opinion, is quite reasonable which is about 25 per cent of enhanced compensation awarded by High Court. He has, however, not given any such allowance for enhanced compensation awarded by Addl. District Judge. On same basis we are of opinion that 25 per cent deduction out of enhanced compensation awarded by Addl. District Judge should also be made to arrive at value of right to receive compensation. amount of interest included in enhanced amounts of compensation for period 1st April, 1981 onwards will have to be excluded. final shape will be like this: Total enhanced compensation is Rs. 15,56,312. Out of this amount interest on enhanced compensation for period 1st April, 1981 to final dates of payment will have to be excluded. Out of balance amount 25 per cent will be deducted to arrive at value of right to receive enhanced compensation as on valuation date viz. 31st March, 1981. AAC as pointed out earlier, has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,00,268 out of enhanced compensation awarded by High Court. Even for this compensation, amount of interest included therein for period 1st April, 1981 to date of payment shall first be excluded and on balance, deduction, of 25 per cent will be given. order of AAC is modified accordingly. WTO shall recalculate additions to be made to net wealth of assessee on this basis. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** AMAR NATH v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER