(Appeals from the judgments and orders both dated May 16, 1975, in I.T. Matters Nos. 389 and 390 of 1970).

Wealth tax--

--- Net wealth---Firm of solicitors---Partner---Share of outstanding due to firm from clients---To be included in assets of firm to ascertain partner's interest therein.

Against the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dipti Kumar Basu v. C.W.T. (1976) 105 I.T.R. 450 to the effect that the outsandings due to a firm of solicitors from its clients constituted assets the value of which had to be included in the assets of the firm for the purpose of ascertaining the interest of a partner of the firm therein for computing his net wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 [prior to its amendment in 1976 by inclusion of clause (xa) in section 5(1) of the Act], the assessee preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. Agreeing with the view taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, having regard to (a) the relevant statutory provisions having undergone a change in 1976, (b) the amount involved not being substantial, and (c) the decision of the High Court having already been approved by the Supreme Court in CW.T. v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (1985) 152 ITR 454.

Dipti Kumar Basu v. C.W.T. (1976) 105 ITR 450 affirmed.

C.W.T. v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (1985) 152 ITR 454 (SC) ref.

Sankar Ghose, Senior Advocate (Mridula Ray, R. Ayyam Perumal and Leo Raj, Advocate with him) for Appellants.

B.B. Ahuja, S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini Advocates for Respondent.

ORDER

These are two appeals from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Dipti Kumar Basu v. CWT (1976) 105 ITR 450. The question in these appeals is whether the appellants who are partners in a firm of solicitors at Calcutta are liable to be taxed under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of their share of the outstandings due to the firm from various clients. This question has been answered against the appellants and hence the present appeal.

It has been brought to our notice by Mr. B.B. Ahuja, learned counsel for the Union of India, that the judgment under appeal has already been approved by this Court in C.W.T. v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju (1985) 152 ITR 454, 457.

The question raised is not of much contemporary importance as the relevant statutory provision had been amended since 1976. The amount involved is also not very substantial. After hearing counsel, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court and, having regard to the fact that the decision of the High Court already stands approved by this Court, we dismissed these appeals. We, however, make no order as to costs.

M.BA./1278/T Appeals dismissed.