S. GROVER, J.M. We have six second appeals in respect of asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and cross-appeals for asst. yr. 1980-81. For last year there is cross-objection from assessee in relation to Revenue appeal. orders brought in appeal are three in numbers. One is common for asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75, second for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and third for 1980- 81 assessment year. All three are passed by CWT (A), Rajasthan-II, Jaipur. first two are dt. 3rd Nov., 1986 and third is of 2nd March, 1987. 2 . CWT (A)'s order for first aforesaid three years has emanated from two Tribunal orders one dt. 4th Nov., 1981 in WTA Nos. 381, 382 and 383 (JP)/1981 and other of 14th March, 1983 in WTA Nos. 408, 407 & 406/JP/81 which were passed in respect of cross-appeals from assessee and Revenue respectively. 3. Before proceeding further, we must deal with issue of delay of seven days each in filing second appeals in respect of 1972-73 and 1974-75 assessment years and six days each in relation to asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979- 80. 4 . In written condonation requests it is explained that CWT(A)'s two common orders were received on 8th Dec., 1986 and applications were made for extra certified copies on 22nd Dec., 1986 to file separate appeals, which were supplied on 12th Feb., 1987. assessee in meantime on 2nd Feb., 1987 filed two appeals in respect of asst. yrs. 1971-72 and 1973-74 with two copies served on 8th Dec., 1987 which were in time and submitted other related four appeals on 13th Feb., 1987 two of which are late by seven days and others by six days. On stated accepted facts delays are condoned as fifty-one days taken by CWT in supplying certified copies must be excluded from period of limitation. 5. Dealing first with asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75 and related first order of CWT(A) identical worded grounds have two separate components. first contention is that against returned value of Rs. 30,000 for assessee's half-share in Nahargarh Road Property of Jaipur CWT(A) (in second adjudication) was wrong in adopting same at Rs. 50,000, Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 75,000, respectively and second being that net value of all properties should have been taken at nil, as properties were encumbered with tax liabilities and same were under attachment for tax liabilities of assessee and his deceased parents from whom most of properties were inherited and also that tax liabilities in any case should have been adjusted against taxable wealth. 6 . dispute regarding abovestated valuation was restored by Tribunal to CWT(A) accepting contention in Revenue's appeals that there being no details available of properties which were jointly valued by WTO and such details also not made available before Tribunal matters required fresh look. 7 . In CWT(A)'s order which came to be passed consequently details are not again projected. It has been stated that Nahargarh property was old and lacking facilities but keeping in view size and commercial potential value was being estimated at figures given above. 8 . Shri M.R. Verma, learned Chartered Accountant appearing with Shri P.K. Tiwari made very valiant attempt and we must accept that at first blush we were impressed that when CWT(A) had accepted assessee's version of Rs. 30,000 for said property for asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1977-78 and in cross-appeal filed for 1977-78 Revenue did not contest relief, there seemed no justification for not believing and accepting assessee's version for earlier years but on closer look it was revealed that for accepting assessee for asst. yr. 1975-76 CWT(A) vide her order dt. 26th March, 1982 relied on CWT(A) earlier order for 1981-82 which came to be vacated by Tribunal on 14th March, 1983 (supra) and matter restored to CWT(A). 9 . Similarly, in respect of asst. yr. 1977-78 CWT(A) reversed assessment on point by simply referring to her order for 1975-76. Under such circumstances even if Revenue did not raise issue before Tribunal no benefit can accrue to assessee. As fact in fairness we repeatedly asked Shri Verma and Shri P.K. Tiwari to give us details of Nahargarh property, i.e., its size and location but complete helpness was shown for which we found no justification, particularly when it was claimed that assessee's share was half and location was City of Jaipur. 10. Further, not only value is involved for first three years but for later years value has been gradually raised in as much as for asst. yr. 1980-81, it is taken by CWT(A) at Rs. 1,50,000. assessee's attitude under such circumstances cannot be favourably viewed. 11. On given facts, we confirm CWT(A)'s order on issue as reasonable calling for no interference because in view of Tribunal's observations, while restoring matter back, Revenue authorities could also be vigilant and we see no justification as to why details of Nahargarh property could not be brought on record by Revenue if assessee was avoiding giving details. 12. On second grievance we would have directed lower authorities to redetermine value of those properties which were encumbered with liabilities tax and/or of other nature and also that tax liabilities should be adjusted after these are finally determined resulting from Tribunal's directions but this aspect and issue came to be decided by Tribunal for 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75 vide order dt. 4th Nov., 1981 (supra) against assessee and to project such aspect paras 7 to 9 of said order are reproduced below: "7. As regards ground No. 2, in impugned order CIT (A), vide para 15 of impugned order, has observed as under: 'The appellant had claimed deduction for following amounts being liabilities of various firms/persons noted below: Rs. (a) For Bharatpur firm 2,29,789 (b For Karauli firm 2,86,609 (c) For Smt. Jignabai (deceased) 1,37,871 (d) For Shri Govindnarain (deceased) 12,33,359 (e) For self 3,06,666 It was admitted by Shri Verma, learned counsl for appellant, that these liabilities were more than 12 months old and some of them were continuing for last several years. Moreover no evidence was produced before me showing that appellant was liable to pay liabilities in respect of Bharatpur and Karauli firms. Smt. Jignabai died in 1969. It is not understood as to how appellant was liable for her outstanding dues. Shri Govind Narain had died on 9th June, 1957. No evidence was shown in support of claim for his liabilities. Shri Verma was fair enough to admit that liabilities for taxes were being disputed by appellant and have been outstanding for more than 12 months from relevant valuation date. For this reason also, appellant cannot be allowed any deduction (Refer s. 2(m)(iii) of Act).' 8. In view of categorical concession extended by learned counsel for assessee before 1st appellate authority as also in view of specific and categorical finding of CIT (A) that assessee has not produced any evidence to show his liabilities, as also in view of fact that facts contained in para 15 of impugned order have not been controverted by learned counsel for assessee before us, we see no reason to interfere in impugned order of CIT (A) on above score viz. ground No. 2 filed by assessee before us. 9. Before parting with case we like to add that before us assessee relied upon ratio of decisions of Allahabad High Court which stand reported in CWT vs. Padampat Singhania (1973) 90 ITR 418 & 79 ITR 188 but in view of specific concession as also in absence of any proof vis-a-vis finding of 1st appellate authority mentioned as above, case law is of little help to assessee." cause of action if any in respect of above findings and decision cannot be revived by us. Under circumstances we reject assessee on issue by holding that same does not survive for our consideration. 13. This brings us to second order of CWT(A) in respect of asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80. In original memoranda of appeals grounds taken are identically worded with those, for three assessment years dealt earlier with additional grievance in respect of asst. yr. 1973-74 regarding valuation of Rampura Kota property taken by CWT(A) at Rs. 65,000 as against declared value of Rs. 55,000 and assessment of Rs. 80,000. This question should not detain us because Tribunal vide its order dt. 4th Nov., 1981 (supra) accepted assessee's valuation of Rs. 55,000 each for asst. yrs. 1971-72 and 1972-73. This property was auctioned by IT authorities for Rs. 80,000 in March 1975. It would be fair to take value as on 31st March, 1973 at Rs. 60,000. Necessary modification is directed. 14. Shri Verma and assessee stated before us that Rampura Kota property's sale proceeds of Rs. 80,000 were entirely appropriated and adjusted by IT authorities towards tax arrears. We are believing assessee because statement of such nature is considered to be solemnly made and not as frivolous argument. 1 5 . Coming to Nahargarh property we have already upheld CWT(A)'s market valuation of Rs. 75,000 for asst. yr. 1974-75 in this very order and there being no change in facts or assessee's stand we see no justification for disturbing market value taken at Rs. 70,000, Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,25,000 for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80. But matter does not rest there as encumbrance factor's plea could and should not be ignored in arriving at value for taxation purposes. 1 6 . It must be recorded that for these three years there has been no concession of any kind from assessee with regard to his claim that after valuing properties it was obligatory for WT authorities to adjust encumbrances attached to properties. Further, for asst. yr. 1980-81 same CWT(A) who decided cases up to asst. yr. 1979-80 vide his two separate orders dt. 3rd Nov., 1986, has directed WTO by his order of 2nd March, 1987 passed in appeal No. 4/85-86 to examine claim regarding liabilities of Rs. 15,19,294. It is considered expedient to reproduce paras 6 & 7 of said order at this stage: "6. Ground No. 5: Deduction for Liabilities Rs. 15,19,294: WTO has disallowed above claim as unproved and inadmissible, as has been done in past years. At time of hearing, it is contended that certain properties were received from Smt. Jinga Bai along with liabilities and taxes pertaining to those properties. It is contended that these are inherited liabilities and same have to be allowed as these are sort of charge on assets. age of these tax liabilities is not material. assessee relies on Supreme Court decision in CWT vs. Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh (1984) 39 C T R (SC) 147 : (1984) 146 ITR 202 and CWT vs. Raghubar Narain Singh (1984) 39 CTR (SC) 153 : (1984) 146 ITR 228. 7. In view of facts stated above, I agree that liability of this type would be allowable to extent it is ascertained and has become final. WTO is, therefore, directed to verify quantum of such ascertained liability and to allow same to that extent. I find that in my earlier orders for asst. yr. 1979- 80, assessee's claim was not allowed as above Supreme Court judgments were not brought to my notice then." 1 7 . Though for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80, assessee's counsel submitted that identically worded additional grounds were filed but on perusal of Memoranda these are considered and taken only as clarificatory in nature and this can be easily demonstrated by reproducing ground for 1978-79 as specimen for three years in memorandum and so called additional ground: "That authorities below have grossly erred while estimating value of Nahargarh Road property and Rampura Kota property at Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 65,000 as against returned value of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 55,000 respectively and also not confirming value of these assets as well as that of other properties and assets to nil in view of fact that properties were encumbered because of attachment for tax liabilities of deceased parents from whom petitioner inherited properties under reference subjected to attachment for non-payment of tax liability." Addl. Ground That authorities below have grossly erred while not allowing claim o f petitioner for tax liabilities attached to assets inherited by petitioner which were under attachment of Department for recovery of taxes from parents to whom assessee has succeeded not reducing value of assets inherited by amount of encumbrance because of tax liabilities." following chart shall give us necessary information as to assessee's version of his assets after adjusting his claim of liabilities and encumbrances attached to properties as also decision of lower authorities: Assessment Return Deficit Assessed Positive Year 1973-74 12,73,294 53,93,832 1978-79 13,08,294 64, 24 ,776 1979-80 13,08,294 56,29,200 18. learned CWT(A) has restored several of issues back to WTO but rejected assessee's claim regarding liabilities vide para 9 of his order reading as follows: "9. Ground No. 5: Claim for outstanding liabilities: assessee had claimed Rs. 20,69,294, Rs. 17,19,294 and Rs. 17,19,294 as deductions out of wealth for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively. WTO has disallowed entire claim on ground that liabilities are unproved and, or inadmissible. I find that for asst. yr. 1971- 72, matter went up in appeal, when CWT(A) by his order No. 24 /80-81 dt. 26th March, 1981 rejected assessee's claim. I am in agreement with reasoning adopted by CWT(A) for said year. Therefore, for similar reasons, assessee's claim for three years under appeal must fail. WTO's orders on this point are, therefore, confirmed." 19. We have already observed above that but for constraint placed by Tribunal's earlier decision and concession recorded from assessee we would have directed processing of assessee's claim even for asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75. Such constraints certainly are not there for other years before us. On other hand, we have contrary but proper approach of CWT(A) for 1980-81. 20. Though while deciding issues regarding tax obligations of assessee's mental exercise should not be stretched to favour view against Revenue but tax disputes being not litigation between two subjects but between state and subject advantage cannot be taken of ignorance of taxpayers if it can be helped within permissible limits. In present case assessee has been persistently stating that he had more liabilities than assets and we have already given returned figures. Therefore, we fail to see any justification for rejecting assessee bona fides request and claim for taking taxable wealth after adjusting encumbrances and liabilities. 21. Observations above should not be misunderstood that liabilities of all kinds should be adjusted against total value of assets. Our directions on other hand are that each asset should be separately analysed and valued keeping in close focus encumbrances. For example, if assessee acquired certain properties/assets along with which certain encumbrances were attached like taxes payable which can be directly related to such property or properties/assets than we fail to see as why necessary adjustment should not be made. negative value of asset, however, cannot be taken or permitted for set off against value of other assets. Adjustment of encumbrances attached to inherited or acquired property must, however, be taken differently and separately from debts which cannot be taken into account as provided under s. 2(m)(ii) and (iii) which are reproduced for ready reference: "Sec. 2(m)(ii) & (iii): "net wealth" means amount by which aggregate value computed in accordance with provisions of this Act of all assets, wherever located, belonging to assessee on valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of aggregate value of all debts owed by assessee on valuation date other than-(i) ** ** ** (ii)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 this Act; and (iii) amount of tax, penalty or interest payable in consequence of any order passed under or in pursuance of this Act or any law relating to taxation of income or profits, or ED Act, 1953 (34 of 1953), Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 (29 of 1957), or GT Act, 1958 (18 of 1958): (a) which is outstanding on valuation date and is claimed by assessee in appeal, revision or other proceeding as not being payable by him, or (b) which, although not claimed by assessee as not being payable by him, is nevertheless outstanding for period of more than twelve months on valuation date." Therefore assessments for years 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80 are set aside to (fer) WTO to do necessary exercise notwithstanding any orders to contrary made in this connection. 22. Coming to asst. yr. 1980-81 whereas assessee's grievances are same as in earlier years Revenue in its cross-appeal agitates CWT(A) directions-(i) regarding processing and allowing deductions to extent permissible and ascertained in respect of claim of Rs. 15,94,214; and (ii) taking value of plot at M.I. Road, Jaipur @ Rs. 500 per sq. yd. as on 31st March, 1980. In cross-objection, assessee assails even value at said rate on ground that plot ownership and possession was under litigation. 23. To avoid piecemeal decisions we set aside assessment for 1980-81 also back to WTO to be framed de novo on basis directed for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80. 24 . In result, whereas assessee's appeals for asst. yrs. 1971- 72, 1972-73 and 1974-75 are dismissed, his appeals for asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1979-80 as also parties cross-appeal in respect of asst. yr. 1980-81 and related cross-objection for said year are treated as allowed. *** P. K. TIWARI v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER