This appeal by assessee is directed against order of AAC relating to asst. yr. 1980-81. first ground is that AAC has erred in not allowing deduction under s. 5 (1)(iv) of Wealth-tax Act while computing net wealth of firm for purposes of determining value of interest of assessee in said firm as partner. We have heard both parties. issue is not resintegra. It is covered in favour of assessee by earlier order of this Bench in WTA No. 202 and CO. Not. 43 of 1982 relating to asst. yr. 1976-77 in case of Shri Jagraj Singh. As such, we are unable to sustain order of AAC on this point. same is reversed. WTO is directed to compute value of assessee s interest in firm M/s Krishna Cotton Ginning and Pressing Mills accordingly. additional ground of appeal to following effect has also been sought to be admitted on behalf of assessee: "That there was no justification for learned authorities in not considering claim of appellant that exemption under s. 5(1) (xxxii) was also to be allowed to assessee with respect to his share in industrial undertaking, i.e., M/s Krishna Cotton Ginning Pressing & Oil Mills, Panipat." ld. departmental representative raised preliminary objection to say that ground of appeal does not arise out of order of AAC and, therefore, the, same deserved to be rejected. ld. counsel for assessee, on other hand, pointed out that this issue was raised before WTO through assessee s letter dt. 20th July, 1983. He referred to second paragraph of this letter which is to following effect: "The assessee has 1/4th share in firm of M/s Krishna Cotton Ginning & Pressing Mills, Panipat. assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii)" He urged that WTO did not consider contention. He also referred to his letter dt. 6th November 1985 addressed to AAC, Ambala Range, Ambala and pointed out that claim was presented before him also but he also did not record any finding. He referred to following paragraph in above letter addressed to AAC: "That ld. WTO also ignored that investment in firm of M/s Krishna Cotton Ginning & Pressing Mills was also entitle to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii)". He submitted that even AAC did not bother to adjudicate upon this issue. He, therefore urged that assessee was entitled to raise ground of appeal before Tribunal as it is purely legal ground. On above facts, we are inclined to admit ground of appeal particularly when issue was raised before WTO as well as AAC but they did not consider same. However, we restore this issue to file of WTO to consider claim of assessee for exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) and allow same according to law. second ground is that AAC was not justified in disallowing claim of liability of Rs. 22,250 received as advance against agreement to sell land. It is further stated that he has wrongly held that liability was covered under s. 2(m) and was not allowable. facts according to ld. counsel for assessee are that assessee has entered into agreement to sell agricultural lands against which advance of Rs. 22,250 was taken. Since agricultural lands in question were not transferred upto valuation date, assessee claimed advance received as allowable. WTO was, however, of view that agricultural lands were not included in net wealth of assessee being exempt from levy of wealth-tax. Therefore, advance received there against was not allowable as deduction. AAC has upheld his action. According to ld. counsel for assessee claim has been disallowed in view of s. 2(m)(ii) of Wealth-tax Act. According to these provisions, debts which are secured on, or which have been incurred in relation to any property in respect of which wealth-tax is not chargeable under Wealth-tax Act shall not be allowable as deduction while computing net wealth. He contended that advance was not debt which was secured on property in question neither it was incurred in relation to that property and, therefore, same was to be allowed as liability. ld. D R. on other hand, contended that it was incurred in relation to said property and, therefore, same was not allowable as deduction. We are inclined to agree with ld. D R. that amount of advance received by assessee is not to be allowed as deduction since same has been obtained against asset which is exempt and is not includible in net wealth/chargeable to wealth-tax. We do not find any merit in this ground. same is rejected. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** MUKESH GARG v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER