Judgment :- MISHRA, J. The question under reference, "in the facts and circumstances of the case was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the compulsory deposits were includible in the net wealth and that the market value should be taken to be the face value?" needs to be answered, in our opinion, only after a fresh determination of the relevant contentions of the parties which appear to arise on the facts of the case and since such contentions are not adverted to by the Tribunal at all, we propose to remit the matter back to it for a re-hearing and disposal in accordance with law and if still there is any occasion for a question to be referred to this court, to do so in accordance with law The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, has been making compulsory deposits under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, read with the Compulsory Deposit (Income-tax Payers) Scheme, 1974. The valuation date under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1977-78 is September 30, 1976. The aggregate of the compulsory deposit made as on the valuation date amounted to Rs. 30, 971. The assessee has claimed that the deposit is not includible in the computation of net wealth and submitted its wealth-tax return accordingly. The Wealth-tax Officer has, however, included the deposit in computing the net wealth. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the order of the Wealth-tax Officer is affirmed. The Tribunal also has affirmed the said order. Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the definition of the expression "tax" and "taxation on income" in article 366 of the Constitution of India and contended that when there is imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special, and "tax" is construed accordingly, the compulsion created under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, is in the nature of imposition and thus an impost which is in the nature of a tax and thus, is a liability which cannot be included in the assets of the person who is going to be charged for his net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand, has contended that the compulsion created under the law to make a deposit of a portion of the income alone should not be treated as such imposition which is not in the nature of tax unless it is shown that the amount so taken under the law for depositing is also appropriated by the State, which is an asset retained by the depositor and formed part of his wealth although it is put under some restrictions. He has contended that it is the exercise of the Sovereigns eminent domain and not under its authority to impose any tax the compulsory deposit scheme is created under the ActThe larger contention aside, however, we have found in the instant case that the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, has been amended by the Finance Act (44 of 1980), and its operation is made retroactive with effect from April 1, 1975, and as a consequence of the amendment, section 7A is introduced therein which provides as follows: "7A Compulsory deposit to be exempt for purposes of wealth-tax.--For the purpose of exemption under section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the amount of compulsory deposit shall be deemed to be a deposit with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies." We have seen two relevant provisions in this behalf in section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which are introduced with effect from April 1, 1971, one in clause (xxvi) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act which is as follows: 'any deposit with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act), or with a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a cooperative land mortgage bank or a co-operative land development bank).' and the other in sub-section (1A) of section 5 which reads as follows: 'Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate to exclude from the net wealth of the assessee any assets referred to in clauses (iv), (xv), (xvi), (xvie), (xxii), (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxiva), (xxv), (xxva), (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviia), (xxviib), (xxviid), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxxi) and (xxxii) [not being deposits under the Post Office Savings Bank (Cumulative Time Deposits) Rules, 1959], to the extent the value thereof exceeds, in the aggregate, a sum of five hundred thousand rupeesProvided that where the assets include any assets referred to in clause (xv) or clause (xvi) (not being deposits under the "Post Office Savings Bank (Cumulative Time Deposits) Rules, 1959), which have been owned by the assessee continuously from a date prior to the March 1, 1970, and the value of the assets so included exceeds the limit of five hundred thousand rupees by any amount, such limit shall be raised by the said amount. Provided further, that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any assets referred to in clause (xvie) which are sold by a public sector company before the June 1, 1988. Provided also, that where the value of any assets, being deposits referred to in clause (xxva), has not been excluded from the net wealth of the assessee under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section, so much of the value of such assets as has not been so excluded shall be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee; so, however, that the value of the assets so excluded under this proviso shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.' Explanation.--Where a debt is secured on, or has been incurred in relation to, any asset referred to in this sub-section, the computation under this sub-section shall be allowed first against the value of the asset on which or in relation to which such debt is secured or incurred and, thereafter, against the value of any other asset so referred to." A reading of the provisions in the Wealth-tax Act, leaves no manner of doubt that any deposit of the assessee (nature of the deposit is immaterial), in a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. As a result of the above, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a re-hearing and disposal in accordance with law. No costs.