ORDER Per Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan (Judicial Member) - This appeal is directed against the enhancement of the value of investment shown by the assessee. 2. The assessee is an individual. As on the valuation date 18-5-1981 corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83 she showed in her net wealth her interest in a firm M/s Jaisingh Investments at Rs. 1,99,643. This amount represented her share of the capital on the closure of the books of the firm on 10-5-1981. The firm had been commenced with effect from 21-4-1980 and evidenced by a document dated 21-5-1980 executed by the assessee and five other parties. The firm was carrying on money-lending business. On 21-4-1980 the assessee gave her flat in Bombay to the firm as her capital contribution. On 4-12-1980 the firm sold the flat for Rs. 2,35,000. In the income-tax proceedings of the assessee it was held that the firm should be ignored and the assessee taken to have sold the flat directly so that capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee on the full consideration received by the firm. It is stated that this view of the department was confirmed by the order of the Tribunal dated 30th June 1989 in ITA Nos. 1904 & 1905 (Mds) /86. Consequently the WTO was of the view that the full consideration received should be treated as belonging to the assessee and therefore he substituted the sum of Rs. 2,42,893 (Sale Price Rs. 2,35,000 + Rs. 7,893 interest) for value of Rs. 1,99,643 shown by the assessee. This was confirmed on appeal. 3. In the further appeal before us, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that whatever may have been the reasons for enhancing the capital gains for income-tax purpose, the assessment for wealth-tax depended upon the actual asset held by the assessee and since the assessee did not receive the full consideration, it could not be assessed as part of the net wealth of the assessee. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the revenue that since the Tribunal had held that the firm was sham, the entire amount be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to succeed. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the revenue that since the Tribunal had held that the firm was sham, the entire amount be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to succeed. For the purpose of wealth-tax assessment we are concerned with the assets belonging to the assessee on the valuation date. In the present case the asset shown by the assessee as belonging to her was her interest in the firm valued at Rs. 1,99,643. Even if the firm had been ignored in computing the capital gains arising from the transfer of the flat it would not follow that the entire assets held by the firm belonged to the assessee. The logical consequence of the allegation that the firm is sham is only the interest in that firm cannot be assessed as an asset in the hands of the assessee. That does not mean that all the assets standing in the name of the firm would belong to the assessee. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of (late) Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888 that the word "belonging to" will refer only to legal title and even mere possession unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of property, would, therefore, not bring the property within the definition of "net wealth" for it would not then be an asset belonging to the assessee. In the present case, the sale proceeds were received by the firm and invested by it. Since the proceeds were movable property and the assessee is not even in possession of the sale proceeds the amounts shown as investment of the firm cannot be taken as belonging to the assessee. As long as the title of the other partners to share in the property of the firm is not extinguished and cannot be denied, the right of the assessee will be limited to her share in the property of the firm. Her rights do not get enlarged by the finding that the firm is sham for the purpose of capital gains, as long as that finding did not mean that the partnership deed was not acted upon. Her rights do not get enlarged by the finding that the firm is sham for the purpose of capital gains, as long as that finding did not mean that the partnership deed was not acted upon. In the present case, the revenue did not dispute the fact that the partnership deed was in fact acted upon and the investments were made only by the firm with the consequence that the right of the other partners to share in the assets of the firm cannot be defeated by the assessee. It follows that only her share in the firms property can be taken as belonging to her as on the valuation date especially when she has not received the full consideration herself and hold it on the valuation date in her own name. We therefore deem it fit to set aside the order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Wealth-tax Officer to correctly assess her interest in the firm at Rs. 1,99,643 as shown by the assessee. 5. The appeal is allowed.