A.K. DASS, J.M. These two appeals are at instance of Department and are opposed by assessee. W.T.A. No. 454 (Cal) of 1984 first ground relates to valuation of jewellery. WTO added as sum of Rs. 13,334 to value of jewellery disclosed by assessee for following reasons: "The price of gold was Rs. 80 per gross during year as against last year's rate of Rs. 57 per gram. That means rise of price is Rs. 23 per gram. However, considering fact of carate of gold and some portion of alloys used for manufacturing gold ornaments, value is taken Rs. 21 per gram. assessee's ornaments contained 158 750 grams of gold. Thereby, value comes for addition on account of gold ornaments only at Rs. 3,334. Similarly, value of precious stone has also been increased by about 10 per cent over last year's rate as discussed earlier. value of precious stone as per valuer's report dt. 22nd Dec., 1978 was Rs. 1,01,069. Hence, sum of 10,000 on estimate is added on account of precious stone. Thereby, total additions on account of gold ornaments and precious stone come to Rs. 13,334 (Rs. 3,334 plus Rs. 10,000)". In coming to above conclusion WTO rejected contention of assessee that value shown in valuation report dt. 22nd Dec., 1978 is valid for three years as per Board's Circular because of increase in prices of gold is by leaps and bounds in each of every year and also about 10 per cent increase in price of precious stones. On appeal, CWT(A) deleted addition made by WTO because he was of opinion that: "The WTO was not justified in increasing valuation on estimated basis. It may be that there was slight increase in price of gold and diamond. But then it was by taking into account such price fluctuations that Board has provided guidelines for acceptance of valuation report for three years unless where was wide fluctuation in price which may justify revision in valuation, but some marginal increase in price would not justify any variation, in valuation for subsequent years". departmental representative contended that CWT(A) was not justified in treating 10 per cent increase in price of precious stones and increase of Rs. 23 to Rs. 25 per gram of gold is slight increase or marginal increase. He further contended that Board Circular No. F. No. 618/68-WT dt. 20th Sept., 1968 is not applicable to assessment years under consideration because this applied to asst. yr.1968-69 and next two years i.e. asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1970-71. He further contended that examination of paragraphs 2 and 3 of said Circular is sufficient to show this. This contention was opposed by authorised representative for assessee who contended that Circular is not confined to asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1970-71 as contended by departmental representative but is applicable to all assessment years. Alternatively he argued that principle as stated in this Circular should be considered to have been extended to subsequent years. In this connection he also placed reliance on this Tribunal's order dt. 28th Aug., 1985 in WTA No. 965 and 966 (Cal) of 83 in case of Sripati Singhania (HUF). On careful consideration of materials on record relied upon by authorised representative for parties, facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that Board Circular is not applicable to assessment years under consideration. Tribunal's order dt. 28th Aug., 1985 was decided on basis of facts involved in said year which had shown absence of exceptional circumstances. But in instant case such exceptional circumstances are present. Paragraph 1 of Circular shows attention to clarification of Wealth-tax Guidance Notes with regard to valuation of immovable property and jewellery published earlier. Paragraph 2 clearly shows that valuation made by approved valuer for asst. yr. 1968-69 was to be accepted for next two years viz., 1969-70 and 1970-71, with "such adjustments as may be considered necessary in circumstances of any particular case "where valuation of immovable property was concerned. It further laid down that in regard to jewellery valuation made by approved valuer for asst. yr. 1968-69 was to be accepted for next two years also "with such adjustments as may be considered necessary on account of changes in such adjustments as may be considered necessary on account of changes in price of gold, etc." Even then it was clarified that adjustments will be permissible "where there has been substantial alteration in having effect of increasing value of asset to significant extent". We agree with departmental representative that increase of 10 per cent price of precious stones and of Rs. 23 to Rs. 25 per gram of gold is significant even within meaning of this Circular. So even according to clarification given in Circular WTO was justified in not accepting valuation as given in valuation report dt. 22nd Dec., 1978. But we make it clear that Circular cannot affect valuation for assessment years order than 1968--69 to 1970-71. So CWT(A) was not justified in deleting addition on this ground only. He should have considered whether addition in valuation of jewellery made by WTO was right in facts disclosed. This CWT(A) did not consider. As such we are of opinion that matter should be remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh examination. As such we set aside his order and remit matter back to him for re-examination without applying Board Circular to valuation. next ground relates to addition of amount standing in CDS A/c o f assessee to total wealth of assessee. departmental representative submitted that face value of deposit was to be included in net wealth of assessee and for this purpose relied on special Bench decision of Tribunal in case of Smt. Sushilaben A. Mafatlal vs. WTO (1986) 26 TTJ (Bom) 67 (SB): (1986) 18 ITR 189 (Bom) (SB). Opposing this contention authorised representative for assessee relied on order dt. 18th Jan., 1983 of Delhi Bench in WTA Nos. 419 (Del)/81 in case of WTO vs. N.D. Nargolwala (1984) 18 TTJ (Del) 473 and order dt. 26th Feb., 1986 of Calcutta Bench in WTA Nos. 8 to 10 (Cal) of 1985, dt. 16th Jan., 1986 in WTA Nos. 658 to 660 (Cal) of 1984 and dt. 3rd Feb., 1986 in WTA Nos. 480 to 482 (Cal) of 1984. On examination of these orders we find that orders dt. 26th Feb., 1986, 16th Jan., 1986 and 3rd Feb., 1986 of Calcutta Bench we find that these orders were passed on basis of order dt. 18th Jan.,1983 of Delhi Bench in case of N.D. Nargolwala. This decision in case of S.D. Nargolwala was considered by Special Bench and thereafter it come to conclusion that "deposits under CDS A/c is not exempt as annuity because what is paid every year as instalments of principal and interest is not annuity in eye of law. So we prefer to follow Special Bench decision in case of Smt. Sushilaben A. Mafatlal. As such, in following said Special Bench decision, we set aside order of CWT(A) and restore order of WTO on this point. WTA No. 456 (Cal) of 1984 first ground relates to valuation of agricultural land. WTO rejected contention of assessee that valuation made is valid for three years and "in absence of details and evidence in respect of other agenta attached to firm", WTO estimated value of land and other assets at Rs. 87,000. On appeal, CWT(A) directed WTO to "adopt value of land at Rs. 37,000, as per valuation report of registered valuer". departmental representative contended that Board Circular dt. 20th Sept., 1968 is not applicable to assessment year under consideration. This contention was opposed by authorised representative for assessee who contended that said circular was applicable. By our finding at paragraph No. 4 above we have decided that said Circular dt. 20th Sept., 1968 is applicable only to asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1970-71. In accordance with our said finding we hold that this circular was not applicable in assessment year under consideration. As such CWT (A) was not justified on basis of Circular to delete addition made by WTO. He however did not consider addition on merit because of his reliance on this Circular. So in setting aside his order we direct CWT(A) to examine justifiability of addition in valuation of agricultural land after excluding circular from consideration. next ground relates to valuation of jewellery. In accordance with our finding at paragraph no. 4 above, we set aside order of CWT(A) on this point and direct him to examine question of valuation of jewellery on material on record without applying Board's Circular. next ground relates to inclusion of CDS amount in total wealth of assessee. In accordance with our finding at paragraph no. 5 above, we set aside order of CWT(A) on this point and restore order of WTO. As result, both appeals are allowed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. RAGHUPATI SINGHANIA (HUF)