B. GUPTA, A.M. following ground has been raised in this appeal filed by Revenue: "On facts and in circumstances of case, ld. AAC was not justified in directing to allow deductions under s.5(1) (iv) in respect of flat which is not registered in name of assessee." While it is contended by ld. Departmental Representative that since assessee was not registered owner of property, there was no question of property belonging to him and, therefore, exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act, 1957 ought not to have been allowed by AAC it is contended by ld. authorised counsel of assessee that if property in question did not belong to assessee, no part of its value could be included in net wealth and that in any case when WTO had treated property as belonging to assessee and included in his net wealth value thereof, deduction under s. 5(1) (iv) became allowable and that, therefore, AAC was justified in granting that deduction. Even though till some time back we have been holding as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme in case of Raja Mohd. Amir Khan AIR 1965 SC 1923 that though word belonging is capable of denoting absolute title, it is nevertheless not confined to connoting that sense alone and that even possession of interest less than that of ownership could be signified by that word and consequently rejecting similar appeals filed by Revenue by holding that deduction under 5(1)(iv) of that W.T. Act would be allowable in respect of property for which registered sale-deed had yet to be executed, it now appears to us that stand that we have been erstwhile taking will need change in view of latest law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their decision in case of Nawab Sir Osman Ali Khan vs. CWT (1986) 57 CTR (SC) 89: (1986) 162 ITR 888 (SC): (1986) 28 TAXMAN 641 (SC), In that case Nizam of Hyderabad had received sum of money representing market value of certain immovable properties which had been agreed to be sold, but is respect of which registered sale deeds had not been executed. possession of properties had been handed over to purchasers. question arose as to whether property still belonged to Nizam. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where agreement or contract to sell property had been executed and purchaser had been put in possession and where purchaser had every right to enforce specific performance and execution of sale deed in event of vendor being not willing to do so, puachaser could not be treated as legal owner and vendor still continued to be vested with legal title and that property would still belong to vendor in eyes of law. In view of this pronouncement assessee- respondent, who was still to get property registered in its name by execution of formal registered sale deed, could not be considered to be person to whom property belonged. interest of assessee-respondent in property in question would have to be valued not on basis that it was immovable property belonging to it, but on basis that it had rights in property other than those of legal ownership. What right or interest in property respondent had will have to be determined on basis of nature of transaction by which assessee respondent came in possession of property. Thereafter, question of applicability if, any exemption under s.5 of WT Act will be considered, if necessary. In situation that now prevails in view of latest pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court 28 TAXMAN 641 we deem it is proper and in interests of justice that matter is restored to file of WTO in order that wealth-tax assessment in respect of property in question in redone in accordance with law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). order passed by AAC on point is vacated and appeal by Revenue is treated to have been allowed for purposes of statistics. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. M.K. MONGA