GEORGE CHERIYAN, V.P.: appeals in present case relate to asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980- 81 and are presented by two assessees, one Miss. P. Sarada and another legal representative of one Shri A.P. Madhavan. Shri Madhavan had passed away in 1985. appeals have been preferred against orders passed by CWT in exercise of his powers under provisions of s. 25 (2) of WT Act, 1957. According to Commissioner in completing wealth-tax assessments for respective assessment years, WTO had omitted to include market value of certain properties which according to each of assessee had been transferred by them prior to valuation date. To appreciate finding of Commissioner, we would set out, in brief, certain facts. On 26th May, 1985 deed of partnership was entered into between four persons, two of whom were limited Complanies, i.e. M/s Universal Radiators Ltd. and M/s Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd. and two of whom were individuals, i.e. Shri A.P. Madhavan and Miss. P. Sarada, latter two being appellants before us. According to instrument of partnership, firm came into existence on 1st April, 1975. Clause 3 sets out business of firm to be as under: "3. business of firm shall be that of dealing in Real Estates, Owner of properties, Letting out or hiring out of properties, construction of Flats, Shop, houses, small residential houses and owning and dealing in agricultural lands and carrying out agricultural operations and horticultural operations, acting as Brokers and such other businesses as may be decided upon from time to time". capital of firm in terms of cl. 6 was to be Rs. 1,00,000. two companies were to make contributions towards capital as and when required by firm. Clause 8 stated that Shri Madhavan and Miss. Sarada owned in equal shares certain immovable property consisting of factory building and agricultural lands at Coimbatore in Survey No. 272/2A and having total area of about 3 acres and 31 cents. deed stated that aforesaid property "which shall w.e.f. 1st April, 1974 vest in firm and shall be treated as property of firm". clause further stated that entire property including factory building and agricultural lands was to be valued at Rs. 12 lakhs. Credit was to be given to Shri Madhavan for Rs. 6,00,000 and to Miss Sarada for Rs. 6,00,000. value of land included in estimated value of Rs. 12,00,000 was again estimated at Rs. 2,00,000. Out of amount of Rs. 6,00,000 credited to Shri Madhavan, Rs. 25,000 was to be credited to his capital account in terms of deed and balance, i.e. Rs. 5,75,000 was to be credited to current account of Shri Madhavan. So also in case of Miss Sarada Rs. 25,000 was to be credited to her capital account and balance of Rs. 5,75,000 was to be credited to her current account. In addition, two individuals had certain properties situated in Ward No. 129, Avadi Road, Ambattur, Madras including certain structures and also vacant site. total area was 4.58 acres and cl. 9 of partnership deed stated that aforesaid property "shall w.e.f. 1st April, 1975 vest in firm and shall be treated as property of firm." value of entire property was fixed at Rs. 10,00,000 made up of Rs. 9,00,000 representing value of buildings and structures and Rs. 1,00,000 representing value of land which belonged exclusively to Miss Sarada. value of Rs. 1,00,000 relating to land was credited to current account of Miss Sarada. balance of Rs. 9,00,000 was divided equally and Rs. 4,50,000 was credited to current account of Shri Madhavan and Rs. 4,50,000 was credited to current account of Miss Sarada and this finds mention in cl. 9 of partnership deed. On amounts to be credited to current account of Shri Madhavan and Miss Sarada interest was payable at 6 per cent per annum. There was specific clause that partnership would be dissolved by any partner giving to other partner notice of not less than one month and in all other matters which are not specifically referred to, it was stated, that firm would be governed by provisions of Partnership Act. Subsequently, deed of dissolution was executed on 30th March, 1976 to which four partners referred to were signatories. It was mentioned that "whereas Urban Land Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976 was passed subsequent to formation of partnership and Act received assent of President of India on 17th Jan., 1976 and Act had object of providing imposition of ceiling on vacant land and regulating construction of buildings, it was considered that objects with which partnership was formed could not be carried out in view of policy of Government and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing partnership". partnership, it was stated, would, therefore, stand dissolved from date of execution of document i.e. 30th March, 1976. terms of dissolution were set out and to extent of appeals now under consideration relevant clauses are as under: "1. partnership firm of Universal Real Estate Agency constituted under Deed of partnership dt. 26th May, 1965 shall stand dissolved w.e.f. 30th March, 1976. Balance Sheet of firm on 30th March, 1976 has been drawn up and has been signed by all partners hereto in token of acceptance of correctness thereof and it is annexed hereto. property situated in Mettuppalaiyam Road, Coimbatore, belonging to firm and consisting of Factory Buildings and Agricultural Lands, in S.F. No. 272/2A and having total extent of 331.5 cents shall be taken over by Universal Radiators Ltd., which shall be entitled thereto in absolute right. property situated in Ambattur, Madras including Buildings and Superstructures and vacant sites in Ward No. 129, Avadi Road, all covered by T.S. No. 23, 24(a), 25, 27/1 to 4, 29,43/1, 43/2A and 43/3, and having total extent of 4.58 acres, shall be taken over by Madras Radiators & Pressings Private Ltd., which shall be entitled thereto in absolute right. accounts of partnership shall be settled amongst partners in following manner: (a) cash balance of Rs. 49,333 remaining after payment of Rs. 500 audit fee, shall be taken over by Miss P. Sarada. (b) Universal Radiators Ltd. shall pay Sri A.P. Madhavan and Miss. P. (b) Universal Radiators Ltd. shall pay Sri A.P. Madhavan and Miss. P. Sarada, each sum of Rs. 5,87,583.75 Ps. (c) Madras Radiators & Pressings Private Ltd., shall pay Sri A.P. Madhavan sum of Rs. 4,62,258.75 Ps. and shall also pay Miss. P. Sarada Rs. 5,12,918.75 Ps". Revenue had considered that there was transfer of property by two appellants and P before us to respective companies when companies concerned in terms of deed of dissolution took over properties referred to. Accordingly, capital gains tax was levied in case of each of appellants for asst. yr. 1976-77 ostensibly because according to Revenue transfer took place on date of dissolution i.e. 30th March, 1976. Revision petitions were preferred by each of assessees to Commissioner and Commissioner passed order on 26th Feb., 1983 in case of Shri Madhavan. similar order was passed in case of Miss. Sarada also. In case of Madhavan Commissioner discussed issue of liability of capital gains tax in paragraph 8 of his order. Commissioner came to conclusion that according to ratio of various judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court it would appear that unless there was duly registered document of transfer there would be no transfer of immovable property in eye of law and consequently no capital gains would arise. submission of assessee was that there was no registered document in present case alienating properties to companies. Commissioner finally directed WTO to verify matter and delete capital gains included in assessments of each assessee if he found that no deed of sale was in fact executed and/or registered during previous year relevant to assessment year. It is found as fact that there was no such registered document and, therefore, assessment to capital gains holding that there was transfer of profits to companies fell through. In course of his order of revision Commissioner made certain observations which had bearing on genuineness of firm of M/s Universal Real Estate Agency which was constituted under deed of 1st April, 1975. In orders passed under s. 25(2), Commissioner set out in extenso observations on this point in earlier order dt. 26th Feb., 1983 and we set out paragraph 5 of order of Commissioner now under appeal where such observations have been reproduced as under: "5. CIT (Central-I) Madras in same case in his order No. C. 1511 (18)/81-Central-1 dt. 26th Feb., 1983 held inter alia as under: "8.7. I have carefully considered assessee's submission. I am unable to agree with assessee's representative that firm was genuine. I agree with IAC who issued directions under s. 144B and on basis of which ITO has completed assessment, that no genuine firm was brought into existence as claimed. firm had not carried on any business. properties which were transferred by assessee and his elder sister to firm were already under tenancy of two companies and it was hardly possible for firm to have carried on any business in Real Estate or letting out on hire those buildings. I am, therefore, convinced that whatever may have been reason for drawing up deed of partnership dt. 26th May, 1975, firm did not carry on any business as contemplated by objects enunciated in Partnership Deed. firm no doubt, came into existence on 1st April, 1975 as narrated in Partnership Deed ostensibly with view to carry on Real Estate Business. But fact remains that firm did not carry on any such business as per objects of Partnership Deed and ultimately dissolved on 31st March, 1976. Be that as it may, as per Indian Partnership Act, 1932, firm cannot be recognized as real entity as it did not carry on any business. I would, therefore, agree with ITO Tax Officer and ignore existence of firm and proceed to consider matter on footing that firm did not exist for our present discussion". As concluded by ITO, what has taken place in reality is that Shri Madhavan and Miss Sharada have passed on properties in question to two companies. So real question for determination before me is whether there was effective transfer in law giving rise to capital gains as held by ITO. In this context, assessee's representative has contended that properties in question are still in names of Shri Madhavan and Miss Sharada in registers of Sub-Registrar and have not so far been alienated to Companies. He has also submitted that no deed of conveyance was executed transferring properties. He has also pointed out that in case of immovable property of value equal to or exceeding Rs. 100 title to property does not pass to transferee till conveyance is executed and registered. learned representative, therefore, pleaded that in any event capital gains did not accrue or arise to assessee and, therefore, it was wrong on part of ITO to have computed and assessed capital gains in this assessment year i.e. 1976-77. After quoting various decisions of Supreme Court Commissioner held in para 8.11: In this case contention of assessee is that no registered deed has been executed alienating properties to companies. If this contention is factually correct, there cannot be any capital gains in light of Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Bhurangaya Coal Co. (1958) 34 ITR 802 (SC) and Alapati Venkatramaiah vs. CIT 57 ITR 185 (SC). Therefore, respectfully following Supreme Court's decisions, I would direct ITO to verify and delete capital gains included in assessment made if he finds that no deed of sale was in fact executed and registered during previous year relevant to this assessment year". Commissioner in present case then went on to consider whether in aforesaid background value of land and other properties should be included in hands of each of assessees or not. submission of assessees was that property became property of firm on 1st April, 1975 and on dissolution of firm properties became those of two companies. assessees had sought to rely on order passed by CIT under s. 154 r/w s. 264 dt. 1st July, 1983 where on contention raised by assessee that it was not necessary for Commissioner to make certain observations about genuineness of firm Commissioner had stated as under: "2. I have carefully considered submissions made by assessee in his petition, in particular his prayer for deleting observations made by me about genuineness of firm in para 8(7) of my order mentioned above. In case on hand, sum of Rs. 6,90,329 was sought to be taxed by ITO, Central Circle, Coimbatore, under head 'capital gains' in respect of certain alleged transfers of properties of land and buildings at Madras and Coimbatore by assessee to firm and subsequently by firm to companies, M/s Universal Radiators (P) Ltd. and M/s Madras Radiators and Pressings (P) Ltd. On facts reported by ITOs, I have observed that firm did not carry on business and that its existence itself is doubtful in absence of any ostensible business activity. As ITO sought to tax capital gains in hands of individual, I held that as there has been no registered deed evidencing transferring of properties by individual to companies concerned, there was no valid transfer in eye of law in this case and that, therefore, taxing of capital gains did not arise. In petitions assessee now wanted observations regarding existence and genuineness of firm should be deleted as it was not relevant to conclusion that there wa no liability to capital gains tax in this case. As already stated, I have only repeated facts stated by ITO and IAC regarding genuineness of firm while disposing of revision petition filed by assessee. As conclusion that assessee was not liable to capital gains tax was mainly based on view that there was no valid transfer between assessee and company, I am inclined to agree with assessee that observation regarding genuineness of firm are not germane to issue. Accordingly, I direct that observations made by me in para 8(7) are treated to be as deleted to extent as noted above". This contention was considered by Commissioner in his order under s. 25(2) under appeal and he stated that in view of clear finding of Department in extracts quoted in paragraph 5 of his order and also by assessing authorities fact remains that firm which was formed on 1st April, 1975 was sham one and never existed and subsequent observations of Commissioner in his order under s.154 did not alter position because earlier observations of ITO and IAC in bringing to tax capital gains still stood ground. Commissioner, therefore, concluded that each of assessees continued to be owner of immovable properties, referred to n d since value thereof was not included in wealth-tax proceedings, there was error on part of WTO which is prejudicial to Revenue in each of assessments. CWT directed WTO to arrive at market value of property and include 50 per cent of value thereof being share of interest of each assessee in net wealth for asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81. He stated that before finalising fresh assessments each assessee would be given adequate opportunity. ld. counsel submitted before us that firm was genuine one formed for genuine purpose of doing business in real estate as well as brokers and, therefore, valid firm had come into existence under deed of 26th May, 1975 by name of Universal Real Estate Agents. In particular, ld. counsel submitted that even in observations in earlier order of Commissioner, reproduced in paragraph 5 of order of Commissioner now under appeal, there is specific finding, "the firm no doubt came into existence on 1st April, 1975 as narrated in Partnership Deed ostensibly with view to carry on Real Estate Business". It was only thereafter stated that firm did not carry on such business as per objects of partnership deed and was ultimately dissolved. In view of this, then Commissioner had held that firm cannot be recognised as real entity because it did not carry on any business and he had stated that he agreed with ITO that existence of firm could be ignored. But even observations to such extent were deleted by order passed under s. 154 dt. 1st July, 1983. ld. counsel stated that once genuine firm had come into existence, as it did in present case w.e.f. 1st April, 1975 and each of assessees before us had brought into common stock of firm their immovable property as was categorically mentioned in partnership deed, there was no need for registration of document and this was clear from observations in case of Sunil Siddharthbhai Kartikeya v. Sarabhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 at 524 (SC). Sarabhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 at 524 (SC). Since there was valid transfer by each of assessees of their immovable property to firm, ld. counsel submitted that value of properties could not be included in hands of assessees any longer. He also stated that it was clear that firm had shown properties which were subject of transfer in its accounts as its properties and in copies of accounts of firm, which were filed, where respective entries as stipulated in partnership deed were also made bifurcating values between current accounts and capital accounts of assessee-partners. For fact that firm did try to do business in some real estate ld. counsel relied on certain letters of 15th May, 1975 and earlier dates where certain parties had made enquiries from firm regarding construction of property, approval of blueprint etc. and one letter where firm itself had mentioned to one Shankar Rajaram & Associates in letter dt. 10th April, 1975 on firm's letter-head that they had registered new firm for purpose of dealing in real estates. He clarified that use of term "registered" only meant that firm had been formed. This was stated to be in conformity with narration in partnership deed which stated that firm had come into existence from 1st April, 1975 though deed was executed only on 26th May, 1975. ld. Departmental Representative relied also on decision of Supreme Court in case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) and stated that it was essential that veil should be pierced and IT Department had to go behind facade of document to find out real nature of transactions and in present case alleged firm of Universal Real Estate Agency was only sham one. In such circumstances, there could never by any transfer of properties from assessees to firm because there was no genuine firm in existence. Secondly, it is submitted that immovable properties brought in by assessees were not their capital contribution but only negligible value was contributed towards capital, viz. Rs. 25,000 and balance of value which came to about Rs.21,50,000 was credited to current account of assessee. Therefore, properties had not been brought into common stock of firm and since there was no registered document, there was no transfer of property by assessees to firm. Even if it was assumed for sake of argument that firm was in existence since there was no registered deed there was also no transfer of properties by assessees to companies. properties, therefore, continued to be with assessees and value thereof had rightly to be included in their assessments. In reply ld. counsel submitted that if value of property was to be included in event of his argument that there was transfer of property not being accepted, then straight way deduction would have to be given for consideration paid by companies to each of assessees which stood included in wealth of assessees. That apart, because properties used by companies were reflected in their balance sheets and depreciation was also being allowed from year to year where admissible, no willing buyer would pay price as if properties were encumbered and there would be virtually no market value for properties as far as assessees were concerned, since in any event companies were, in any view of matter, in adverse possession. We have considered rival submissions, Sec. 14 of Partnership Act reads as under: "14. property of firm: Subject to contract between partners, property of firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into stock of firm, or acquired by purchase or otherwise, by or for firm, or for purposes, and in course of business of firm, and includes also goodwill of business. Unless contrary intention appears, property and rights and interests in property acquired with money belonging to firm are deemed to have been acquired for firm". property of firm includes all properties and rights and interests in property originally brought into stock of firm. We have already referred to relevant clause of partnership deed dt. 26th May, 1975. In partnership deed it was categorically mentioned in respect of each of items of property that from 1st April, 1975 property in question would "vest in firm and shall be treated as property of firm". statement is unambiguous. properties in question were brought into stock of firm at inception of firm itself, 1st April, 1975 according to aforesaid statement. Merely because apportionment of value was made and major value was apportioned towards current account of each of assessees and only negligible value was apportioned towards capital account it would not make immovable property one which was not brought into stock of firm. Therefore, (subject to our finding as to whether there was firm in existence or not which we shall deal with later), property in question was brought into stock of firm in terms of s. 14 of Partnership Act and again in terms of aforesaid section became "the property of firm". Supreme Court has categorically held in case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) already referred to, that where assessee brought property as capital contribution into partnership firm, there was transfer of capital asset. Whether contribution was its capital or allocation was made between capital accounts and current account, there would in our view have been transfer. further point to be examined is whether registration was prerequisite for such transfer. At page 520 of 156 ITR their Lordships observed as under: "Our attention has also been invited to cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of Registration Act, which requires registration of non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate "to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property", and to view taken by Courts in this country that when person brings in even his immovable property as his contribution to capital of firm, no written document or registration is required under that clause. That view was expressed in Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal vs. Bishwanath Prasad AIR 1963 pat 221. learned Judges relied on English law that personal assets introduced by partner into firm as his contribution to its capital become property of firm by reason of intention and agreement of parties. view does not spring from consideration that there is no transfer, view is that no document of transfer is required and that, therefore, registration is unnecessary. Patna High Court reiterated that view in Sudhansu Kanta vs. Mahindra Nath AIR 1965 Pat 144". Though observations speak of immovable property brought in as contribution to capital of firm, as we have already observed, as long as immovable property is brought in as contribution by partner at inception, allocation of value between capital account and current account would not make any difference and we have to hold that registration would not be necessary for effecting transfer. Hence absence of registration in present case does not make transaction any less of one of transfer by each assessee to firm (subject to our finding regarding firm being in existence). In case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC), Supreme Court had observed at page 523 as under: "We have decided these appeals on assumption that partnership firm in question is genuine firm and not result of sham or unreal transaction and that transfer by partners of his personal asset to partnership firm represents genuine intention to contribute to share capital of firm for purpose of carrying on partnership business. If transfer of personal asset by assessee to partnership in which he is or becomes partner is merely device or ruse for converting asset into money which would substantially remain available for his benefit without liability to income-tax on capital gain, it will be open to IT authorities to go behind transaction and examine whether transaction of creating partnership is genuine or sham transaction and, even where partnership is genuine, transaction of transferring personal asset to partnership firm represents real attempt to contribute to share capital of partnership firm for purpose of carrying on partnership business or is nothing but device or ruse to convert personal asset into money substantially for benefit of assessee while evading tax on capital gain. ITO will be entitled to consider all relevant indicia in this regard, whether partnership is formed between assessee and his wife and children or substantially limited to them, whether personal asset is sold by partnership firm soon after it is transferred by assessee to it, whether partnership firm has no substantial or real business or record shows that there was no real need for partnership firm for such capital contribution from assessee. All these and other pertinent considerations may be taken into regard when ITO enters upon scrutiny of transaction, for, in task of determining whether transaction is sham or illusory transaction or device or ruse, he is entitled to penetrate veil covering it and ascertain truth". aforesaid observations clearly show that cases were contemplated where partnership itself may be genuine when it would have to be examined further whether bringing in of property was device to convert personal asset into money substantially for benefit of assessee while evading tax on capital gains. partnership, on their other hand, may be sham one also. So we have to decide in present case whether partnership is genuine or not. Sec. 4 of Partnership Act reads as under: "4. Definitions of "partnership". "partner", "firm" and "firm name": Partnership is relation between persons who have greed to share profits of business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually "partners" and collectively "a firm", and name under which their business is carried on is called "firm name". Here four parties are genuine persons. They have agreed to share profits. There is finding of Commissioner in his order under s. 264 of 20th Feb., 1983 which stated, "the firm no doubt, came into existence on 1st April, 1975 as narrated in Partnership Deed ostensibly with view to carry on Real Estate Business". This is reproduced in paragraph 5 of order of Commissioner now under appeal and he has, therefore, relied on this amongst other observations in earlier order of Commissioner. No doubt, in order of Commissioner, dt. 1st July, 1983 under s. 154 he had stated that some of his observations would stand modified but Commissioner had categorically stated that all he did was to reiterate findings of ITO and IAC. So effect of order under s. 154 was only that there was no independent finding by him on genuineness of firm. Commissioner whose order is now under appeal, in dealing with assessee's plea on order under s. 154 stated with reference to his findings in order under s. 154 as under: "8. These observations do not in any way advance case of assessee. What all Commissioner said here is that some of observations of his regarding genuineness of firm are not essential in respect of dispute before him. Even then observations of ITO and IAC to effect that there was no genuine firm still hold good". It is therefore, clear that Commissioner in his order relied on orders of ITO and IAC and statement that firm no doubt, came into existence on 1st April, 1975 as narrated in partnership deed ostensibly with view to carry on real estate business does not stand washed away. case that is sought to be made out is that because subsequently firm did not, in fact, do any business it could not be recognised as real entity. Sec. 6 of Partnership Act lays down criteria for determining existence of partnership and it is stated that regard shall be had to real relationship between parties as shown by all relevant facts taken together. So here as we have already stated, there were genuine parties who executed document stating that they wanted to do business in real estate including brokerage. So incidence of genuineness of firm qua parties and objects of business exist. expression" business carried on" in s. 4 of Partnership Act cannot be interpreted in restricted manner to mean that business should have been in existence even when persons came together and agreed to form partnership. In Commentary on Indian Partnership Act by A.K. Aggarwal (1982 Edition at page 51), there are following observations: "In Sita Ram Kalani vs. Manmal Gattani, business was started when cardinal points were agreed upon and it was only after this, that steps were taken for receiving engine and for purchasing machinery etc. mere fact that formal agreement with other minor details and stipulations was to be drawn up later. In this case it was held: There is no doubt that it is carrying on of business, not agreement to carry it on, which is test of partnership. But each and every step taken for erection of factory, which was to manufacture utensils would be considered within purview of "carrying on business". This term has been used in Partnership Act in broad and general sense. It may be observed that as soon as Partnership starts its commercial life having its own capital its own assets and liabilities, its own employees and its own credit in market in short as soon as it becomes business entity, it would be regarded as 'carrying on business' within meaning of s. 4, Indian Partnership Act". term "carried on business" as used is in all commercial and general terms. Here partnership deed stated that it had its own capital when properties were brought into its common stock by partners and, therefore, had its own assets and liabilities. We do not express any opinion on correspondence sought to be relied upon by learned counsel between firm and various persons because we do not know whether they were before I T authorities but we have restricted ourselves solely to documents which admittedly were before IT authorities. It is clear, therefore, that this is case where there was genuine firm which had come into existence. When genuine firm had come into existence if partners brought their property into common stock, there was transfer of such property from partners to firm and question to treating property as continuing to be separate property of partners no longer arises. In present case, we are not concerned with further aspect mentioned in case of Sunil Sidharthbhai (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC), viz., whether subsequent dissolution did have any effect of being device or ruse to convert personal assets into money substantially for benefit of assessee with view to evading tax or not. In filing wealth-tax returns each of assessees had stated that properties stood transferred to firm in relation to asst. yr. 1976-77. statements of assessees in returns are in conformity with position in law. That being so, we are unable to hold that there was any error prejudicial to Revenue committed by WTO in framing assessments in case of each of assessees for respective assessment years leaving out of consideration value of immovable properties under reference because before valuation dates they cease to be properties of firm also. We, therefore, set aside order of CWT and restore orders of WTO. In view that we have taken it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on various points made by ld. counsel, viz., that market value of property would be virtually negligible because other parties, in any view of matter, had adverse possession or that amounts received in consideration would have to be excluded if values of property are to be included etc. result is, appeals are allowed. *** MISS P. SHARDA v. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX (ASST.)