This appeal by assessee relates to asst. yr. 1979-80. assessee held three plots at Andheri known as Bombivili Land. Cultivation was done on this land for several years in past. land was assessed to land revenue. In prior assessment years assessee did not claim that this land was agricultural land. In assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80, he made such claim. claim was rejected by WTO by making following observation: "The assessee's argument cannot be accepted as these lands are located in area of corporation and in heart of city. Secondly assessee himself offered these lands as non-agricultural lands (in prior years). Thirdly as per provision under s. 2(e) of WT Act all lands are treated as assets." assessee filed appeal before AAC. AAC adopted same reasons and confirmed rejection of claim. assessee is now in further appeal before us. We have heard parties. We may state at outset that in asst. yr. 1979-80 with which we are concerned, agricultural land was not totally exempt from inclusion in net wealth. Under s. 5(1) (iva) r/w s. 5(1A) of WT Act, 1957 exemption was to extent of Rs. 1,50,000, in respect of value of agricultural land together with value of other assets referred in s. 5(1A). Hence, if we hold that land in question was agricultural land, exemption would be available to extent mentioned in s. 5(1A). entries in Revenue records, copies of which were filed by assessee indicated that agricultural operations had been carried on these lands for several years and thereafter these lands remained fallow. particulars of crops are mentioned there. land was assessed to land revenue. land had not been put to any non agricultural use in any year. land has been acquired and possession has subsequently been given to Government. Thus, as far as relevant valuation date was concerned, circumstances prima facie indicate that land in question was agricultural lands. Now let us see whether said prima facie evidence is rebutted. Department relies on three circumstances. first is that land is within corporation area. This circumstances does not rebut above presumption. There is no definition of term agricultural land in WT Act and situation within corporation area is not inconsistent with fact of its being agricultural land. second is that no agricultural operations had been carried on in relevant year. This also does not rebut said presumption when we consider facts that land had not been put to any non-agricultural use and that character of land was that of agricultural land and that in past it had been used for purpose of agricultural only and further that it continued to be assessed to land revenue. third circumstance is that assessee to had not made this claim in earlier assessment year. Not making of similar claim in prior years does not also prevent assessee from making similar claim in subsequent year. Principle of re judicata does not apply to wealth-tax assessments. submission on behalf of assessee is that he came to know of his right to make claim because of Bombay High Court in CWT vs. H.T. Mungale (1983) 32 CTR (Bom) 30: (1984) 145 ITR 208 (Bom) which had been delivered on 16th July, 1982 and as such mere fact that claim was not made in earlier years would not preclude him to make claim this year. contention of assessee is acceptable because in law there is no bar to make claim in subsequent years. decision of Bombay High Court in above case supports assessee. According to this decision, facts that land which was agricultural in character and which had been previously cultivated for several years had not been put to non-agricultural use and had been assessed to land revenue would lead to inference that it was agricultural land although it was lying fallow for some years. Bombay High Court in said case relied on its earlier decision in CWT vs. Podar Mills Ltd. (WT Ref. No. 5 of 1964 decided on 4th Dec., 1973) where it was observed: "If there is land which was once cultivated or put to agricultural use but is now fallow or barren, it would not merely by reason of such fact cease to be agricultural land. Conversely what is patently non-agricultural land may in extra ordinary circumstances be put to use to which agricultural land is usually put and may, therefore, yield agricultural income. However, merely by reason of and may, therefore, yield agricultural income. However, merely by reason of yield it cannot be designated as agricultural land." It was further observed in said decision "Where land is being assessed as agricultural land then, normally, although it is not being put to actual agricultural use, it may be presumed that it continues to be agricultural land, unless it can be shown that it has been in fact put to some non-agricultural use or there is some relevant circumstance to indicate that it cannot be properly regarded as agricultural land." above principle applies to facts of case. On behalf of Department k reliance was placed on decision of Supreme Court in CWT vs. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards), Paigah 1976 CTR (SC) 404: (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC). This decision has been exhaustively considered by Bombay High Court in case of H.V. Mungale (supra) and it is after consideration of said decision that above principle was enunciated. Consequently, decision of Supreme Court does not assist Department. We set aside order of AAC and direct WTO to treat land in question as agricultural land within meaning of s. 5(Iva) of WT Act 1961 and grand relief to extent admissible under s. 5(1A) of said Act. appeal is allowed. *** KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI v. TWELFTH WEALTH TAX OFFICER