Honble BALIA, J.–In all these cases whether are references made under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act,1957 or are appeals under the same Section as amended w.e.f. 1.10.1998, the common set of facts giving rise to a common question, as raised in these cases, on the happenings which took place in the accounting period since 1965-66, the matters relate to various assessment years as per the details which are given in Appendix ``A. (2). To make the record of proceeding complete we notice the questions referred in W.T. Reference and W.T. Appeals. (3). In RA No. 97 to 102/JP/96 at the instance of assessee, the question referred to by the Tribunal is as under:- ``Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee to be the owner of the gold in question and estimating the value of the assessees interest in the said gold at 25% of the market value of gold on the relevant valuation date? (b) The question referred to in RA No. 114 to 119/JP/96 at the instance of Revenue reads as under:- ``Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kgs. Of gold @ 25% of the market value on the relevant dates? (4). These Reference Applications before the Tribunal relate to assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89. (5). Likewise in WT Appeals filed by the Assessee, following common substantial questions of law have been framed respectively. (a) ``Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth? (b) ``Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Megh Ji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the Appellant suffers from vice of double Taxation? (6). In additional to aforesaid two questions in WTA No. 8 to 11 on behalf of the assessee, following additional question has been framed:- (c) ``Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment? (7). (6). In additional to aforesaid two questions in WTA No. 8 to 11 on behalf of the assessee, following additional question has been framed:- (c) ``Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment? (7). In Appeals at the instance of Revenue, following common question of law has been framed: (d) ``Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)? (8). We have made reference to these questions by way of illustration. However, the basic facts and circumstances giving rise to these questions remain the same and substance of the issue remains the same for all assessment years hence all these cases were heard together and are decided by this common order. (9). The first returns were filed in pursuance of notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 on 27.03.1978. The question relates to valuation of 57 Kgs. Of Gold, which was delivered by the assessee to Government Treasury in the form of Gold Bars and is primary gold. The ownership was claimed by the assessee as on the respective valuation dates. (10). The assessee has handed over the gold in question which is in the form of primary gold to the District Collector, Chittorgarh for the purpose of weighing the then Prime Minister of India Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri on 11.12.1965. However, before this transaction of weighing the then Prime Minister could take place, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri died in Tashkent on 10.01.1966. According to the assessee, subsequent to the death of Late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, through his brother he had applied for purchase of Gold Bonds in the year 1966 itself. (11). Before the aforesaid offer of assessee to weigh Shri Shastri in gold could be responded, an F.I.R. was lodged against the assessee and his brother and a complaint in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Udaipur was also filed under Section 406 IPC by Shri Gunwant Lal who too was claiming ownership over the same gold after the announcement of aforesaid offer on All India Radio. He has complained that while effecting repairs in his house situated at Chhoti Sadri, he noticed some unevenness in the floor of the smaller veranda somewhere in August, 1965. With the help of tyre lever and assistance of his driver, after removing the stone slabs due to which the floor was uneven, he found 57 gold bars beneath the surface. Each gold bar was weighting 3 seers or so. It was further alleged that prior to handing over the aforesaid gold to Ganpat Lal, the house of the complainant had already been subjected to a raid by the Customs and Central Excise Department in which large quantity of primary gold and silver and other ornaments were recovered. Apprehending further by the Department, he (Gunwant Lal) entrusted the said gold to the assessee Ganpat Lal by handing over the custody of the said gold and it was assured by the assessee Ganpat Lal to Gunwant Lal that gold would be returned whenever demanded. On making demand to return the gold bars on 8.12.1965 when Gunwant Lal himself went to assessee, the assessee had refused to return the gold bars to him. On 9.12.1965 Gunwant Lal had lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station, Chhoti Sadri. According to the complainant, after this happening, on 11.12.1965 an announcement was made on All India Radio about offer made by the assessee and about this fact Gunwant Lal was informed by Ganpat Lal on 16.12.1965. (12). Thereafter, Ganpat Lal submitted a letter to the District Collector, Chittorgarh to take possession of the gold required to weigh the Prime Minister. As a result of this, about 57 kgs. Gold was placed in treasury and receipt thereof was given to Ganpat Lal. (13). In the first instance, the trial Court convicted Ganpat Lal for having committed offence under Section 406 IPC and directed that by virtue of Section 110(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 the gold in question may be conveyed to Police for handing over the same to the nearest Gold Control Officer. (14). In the judgment of the trial Court, it was noticed that roughly 151 kgs. of gold was entrusted to the assessee by Gunwant Lal and only a fraction of gold was recovered weighing about 57 kgs. (15). (14). In the judgment of the trial Court, it was noticed that roughly 151 kgs. of gold was entrusted to the assessee by Gunwant Lal and only a fraction of gold was recovered weighing about 57 kgs. (15). On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide his judgment dated 7.8.1978 set aside the order of conviction passed by the trial court against the assessee. (16). Against the said order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 7.8.1978, an appeal was preferred by the State of Rajasthan which is pending as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 385/1978. It appears that in the said appeal at the stage of leave to appeal, by an interim order dated 25.10.1978, the court passed an order to the effect that the gold bricks 57 in number may not be given in the custody of the respondents and status quo shall be maintained. Thus, the gold in question remained in the custody of Treasury, Chittorgarh. (17). In this connection, it may also be noticed that said Gunwant Lal was also claiming ownership over the same gold in question and in his Wealth Tax Return, and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that he has been assessed to wealth tax by accepting his ownership over the gold in question before the Tribunal. He has been assessed by the Department in Madhya Pradesh as he is the resident of Neemuch (MP) which is subject to Madhya Pradesh jurisdiction. (18). While claiming himself to be the owner of the gold in question so deposited in the Government Treasury in December, 1965, the assessee is claiming that on the relevant valuation date, the gold in question was not in his possession and his title to gold was in dispute, which has not so far been determined. Hence its value on valuation date has to be taken Nil; and, therefore, the same was not liable to be included in his wealth; and tax liability for the same in the hands of assessee may be taken at Nil. (19). Hence its value on valuation date has to be taken Nil; and, therefore, the same was not liable to be included in his wealth; and tax liability for the same in the hands of assessee may be taken at Nil. (19). As we shall notice hereinafter that since his case was also that he has applied for gold bonds in lieu of the gold so deposited in Treasury, after death of Shri Shastri he must be deemed to have become entitled to Gold Bonds in lieu of said gold and that the gold bonds were exempt from Wealth Tax under Section 5(1)(xiva) of the Act of 1957 as it was then existing. He has also claimed that the question of ownership has not been decided so far and therefore there exists a serious dispute about the ownership of the gold in question and because of the provisions of the Gold Control Act which were in force throughout the period, for which we are concerned in these cases. Firstly, the assessee cannot be said to be a clear owner of the gold in question as his title over the same is being disputed and the assessee cannot be entitled to take possession of the gold in question whether under the orders of the Court or under the provisions of the Gold Control Act. It was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the gold in question cannot be sold and transacted, therefore, its market value may be taken at Nil. At any rate, it has been the contention of the assessee that even if he is held to be the owner of the gold in question, though his right is being seriously disputed, only discounted value of the gold in question can be taken to be its market value as on the respective valuation dates. (20). The Assessing Officer has not decided these issues but, on the basis of the assessees own assertion that he is the owner of the gold in question, has assessed the assessee to wealth tax by valuing the gold in question at the market rate of the primary gold prevailing on respective valuation dates. The orders were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. (21). The orders were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. (21). The Tribunal on the basis of the assessees own admission that he is the owner of the gold in question has held that notwithstanding the dispute about title, right or ownership of the gold in question and appeal against the acquittal preferred by the State is pending decision, still the assessee must be held to be the owner of the gold in question for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal has further held that the ownership and the possession of the primary gold in question was in contravention of the provisions of the Gold Control Act and since the gold in question has not been confiscated so far by the Authorities under the Gold Control Act, it continues to remain the property of the assessee. The Tribunal has also rejected the plea of the assessee that since the gold in question has been included in the assessment of Gunwant Lal as his wealth, it cannot be included again in the wealth of the present assessee. According to the Tribunal since the assessee had accepted his ownership over the gold in question, the assessment made in respect of another assessee cannot affect the case of the present assessee. (22). However, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that although his title over the gold in question was seriously disputed and the assessee has not obtained the possession of primary gold which is held to be in contravention of the provisions of the Gold Control Act. Moreover, even if the ownership of assessee was established, the Government could probably confiscate part of the gold under the provisions of the Gold Control Act. In these circumstances, no purchaser would offer the full value of the gold to the assessee if he wanted to sell it. It was contended by the assessee that the full market value of the gold in question as on the respective valuation dates may not be taken to be the value of the assessees asset but it was prayed that discounted value may be taken keeping in view the adjunct dispute so far as the assessee is concerned. It was contended by the assessee that the full market value of the gold in question as on the respective valuation dates may not be taken to be the value of the assessees asset but it was prayed that discounted value may be taken keeping in view the adjunct dispute so far as the assessee is concerned. The Tribunal while rejecting that value of gold is nil has held that the possession of the gold in question at the time of deposit coupled with the receipt and the other attending circumstances can be said to have some value in the hands of the assessee. (23). According to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal has estimated the discounted value of the gold in question in the hands of the assessee at 25% of its market value as on each valuation date and includible in assessees net wealth. The assessee was held liable to pay wealth tax for each assessment years by including such discounted value in computing his net wealth. (24). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 30.9.1996 and other orders of different dates, the statement of cases have been submitted by referring the aforesaid question and wealth tax appeals have been preferred at the instance of the assessee as well as Revenue to the extent they are aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal. (25). Without going into the details of the case, the substance of the case is that the assessee is claiming ownership over the gold in question, but for the various reasons stated above contends that the value of the gold in question at the respective valuation dates could be taken at Nil, if the assessee is held to be owner of the gold in question and he is held to be liable for tax and not entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xiva) by treating him to be holder of Gold Bonds. The assessee has also contended that the value of the gold in question cannot be included in his wealth as the same has already been included in the wealth of Gunwant Lal who has challenged the title of assessee to such gold. (26). The assessee has also contended that the value of the gold in question cannot be included in his wealth as the same has already been included in the wealth of Gunwant Lal who has challenged the title of assessee to such gold. (26). On the other hand, it was contended by the Revenue that the primary gold being movable property, and its value on the respective dates of valuation could be determined as per the prevailing market rate, the assessee is liable to pay wealth tax on the full value of the gold as per the market rate prevalent on the respective dates of valuation. It was further contended by the Revenue that the fact that the asset (gold) in question is not saleable in the open market does not render the asset to be worthless or of nil value. It was contended by the Revenue that every HUF, Individual or Company as the case may be, is liable to pay tax in respect of the assets which belongs to the person. Even in cases where any asset is not alienable or there does not exist an open market in the sense that it is not traded regularly at a place where such commodity is usually brought and sold, existence of such market is to be assumed as if there is a willing seller and a willing buyer and also there is availability of a commodity which is to be transacted in that market and according to that the market value has to be determined for the purpose of computing the net wealth and taxed. The fact that somebody has disputed the title of the assessee to movable property does not affect the value of asset as on valuation date. The assessee is estopped from disputing his ownership over the property in question. The asset in question, the gold is always a liquid property, value of which can also be determined at the prevalent market rate. Therefore, the assessee is liable to pay wealth tax on each valuation date at the full market value of the primary gold. (27). Number of cases have been cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the assessee which relate to the properties which have been acquired by the State, where the assessee had no claim to possession of the land which had already been acquired. (27). Number of cases have been cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the assessee which relate to the properties which have been acquired by the State, where the assessee had no claim to possession of the land which had already been acquired. In such event, it was held that the assessee was not owner of the land but his asset was his right to receive compensation for the immovable property which had been acquired. This aspect of the matter, we would discuss later. (28). Before we address the issue of valuation of the gold in question in the circumstances in which the question has arisen, it shall be apposite to notice the provisions relating to control of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in, gold, ornaments and articles of gold and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. These provisions were introduced vide Chapter XIIA in Defence of India Rules, which were in force at the time the assessee had delivered the primary gold to Collector for weighing the Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the later legislative development in respect thereof envisaging total prohibition in respect of owning and possessing primary gold and the subsequent in the Law from time to time. It will also be necessary to take into account the charging provisions of the Wealth Tax Act. (29). In October 1962, there has been a wanton war forced on India at Sino-Indian border in the Eastern sector as well as at the border adjoining the Leh Division of the Kashmir. It will also be necessary to take into account the charging provisions of the Wealth Tax Act. (29). In October 1962, there has been a wanton war forced on India at Sino-Indian border in the Eastern sector as well as at the border adjoining the Leh Division of the Kashmir. As a result of situation arising out of this unwholesome war foisted on India, as one of the measures for mobilizing the economic resources to meet the increased defence requirement, in the first instance vide Notification dated 10th of January, 1963 separate Part XIIA under the caption ``Gold Control was inserted in force as amended from time to time until it was replaced with the comprehensive scheme of regulation and control of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in, gold, ornaments and articles of gold and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto, vide promulgation of the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968 vide Notification dated 29.06.1968 and subsequently replaced by the Gold Control Act, 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968) vide Notification dated 1.09.1968 published in the Gazette in India Extraordinary of the same date. (30). In the first instance when the Gold Control Rules were brought into Defence of India Rules on 10th of January, 1963, no prohibition was imposed on owning and possessing or having custody or control over any primary gold other than for the licensed dealers or refiners or the artisans (goldsmiths) who were certified/licensed to obtain, keep and use primary gold in terms of the regulatory conditions laid in the Rules. However, for the first time by inserting Sub-rule (1A) in Rule 126H w.e.f. 1.11.1966, it was envisaged as under:- [(1A) No person (other than a dealer or refiner licensed under this Part) shall, after the expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966, either own or have in his possession, custody or control any primary gold. (31). Thus with effect from 1.11.1966 apart from the dealer or refiner licensed under this Act to keep possession, custody or control any primary gold, there was a total statutory prohibition against owning or possessing any primary gold. Even any custody or control over any primary gold was statutorily prohibited. (32). (31). Thus with effect from 1.11.1966 apart from the dealer or refiner licensed under this Act to keep possession, custody or control any primary gold, there was a total statutory prohibition against owning or possessing any primary gold. Even any custody or control over any primary gold was statutorily prohibited. (32). Since imposition of prohibition, for the first time a transitory provision was introduced for those who were having ownership or possession of primary gold on such date by inserting Sub-rule (1B) vide same Notification in Section 126H which inter alia reads as under:- [(1B) Every person who owns or has in his possession, custody or control at the commencement of the Defence of India (fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966, any primary gold which has been included in a declaration or further declaration made under rule 126-I (as in force immediately before the commencement of the said rules) or in respect of which no such declaration is required to be made under that rule, shall dispose of such primary gold in the following manner, namely:- (i) if he, being the owner, is in possession, custody or control thereof at such commencement, he shall, within a period of six months from such commencement, either sell primary gold to a refiner or dealer licensed under this Part or deliver the same to a dealer or goldsmith licensed or certified, as the case may be, under this Part for conversion thereof into ornaments: (ii) if he, being the owner, is not in possession, custody or control thereof at such commencement, he shall, within a period of four months from such commencement either recover (after redemption, where necessary) the possession, custody or control thereof or authorise, within the said period the person who is in possession, custody or control thereof- (a) to sell such primary gold to a dealer or refiner licensed under this Part, or (b) to deliver the same to a dealer or goldsmith licensed or certified as the case may be, under this Part, for conversion thereof into ornaments; (ii) if he, being the owner, omits or fails to recover the possession, custody or control of such primary gold within a period of four months from the commence of the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966, and further omits, neglects or fails to authorise the person who is in possession, custody or control thereof to sell such primary gold or to deliver the same to a dealer or goldsmith for conversion thereof into ornaments the person who is in possession, custody or control of such primary gold shall within a period of two months from the date of expiry of the said period of four months, sell such primary gold to a dealer or refiner licensed under this Part and dispose of the proceeds of such sale in any manner authorised by law. (33). It will be pertinent to notice here that the gold in question was offered by the assessee and delivered to Collector from his possession in December, 1965 before Sub-rule (1A) and (1B) were inserted in Rule 126H of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Hence on commencement of sub-rules (1A) (1B) of Rule 126H, the assessee was claiming ownership of gold but was not in possession thereof. Hence clause (ii) and/or (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126 H governed his case. (34). The aforesaid provisions clearly postulated that law will not recognize any ownership right or control over the primary gold of any person other than a dealer or refiner licensed or certified to keep the primary gold. It also envisaged that if owner of such primary gold who is in possession, custody or control over the primary gold with the commencement of the provisions of the aforesaid rules, he was required within six months of 1.11.1966 either to sell such primary gold to a refiner or dealer licensed under this Part or deliver the same to the licensed or certified goldsmiths, as the case may be, under this Part for conversion of such gold into ornaments. (35). The second contingency which the Rule envisaged where the person who may be claiming his ownership over the gold but was not in possession thereof at such commencement of new provisions. Such person was either required to recover possession of such primary gold within a period of four months after redemption where necessary or authorise within the said period the person who is in actual possession of control thereof to sell such primary gold to a dealer or refiner licensed under the Rules or to deliver the same to a dealer or goldsmith licensed or certified as the case may be, under this Part, for conversion thereof into ornaments. (36). (36). The third contingency which the Rule envisaged was where the owner omits or fails to recover the possession, custody or control of such primary gold within said four months under the aforesaid provision, or fails, omits or neglects to authorize the person who is in possession thereof to sell such primary gold or to deliver the same to a dealer or goldsmith for conversion thereof into ornaments, the person who is in possession, custody or control of such primary gold was under a legal obligation after expiry of four months from commencement of the provision to sell such primary gold within a period of two months from the date of expiry of four months to a dealer or refiner licensed under this Part and to dispose of the proceeds of such sale in any manner authorized by law. (37). We may also notice here that nothing in this rule was to apply to any primary gold which formed part of any structure or any other construction or appendage within the precincts of a temple, mutt, church, mosque, gurdwara or any other place of public religious worship vide Sub-rule (4) of Rule 126 H which was inserted simultaneously along with Sub-rule (1A) to (1G) and the acquisition of primary gold by the public religious institutions subject to provisions made in Sub-rule (6) of the aforesaid Rule. (38). We have noticed above that the assessee has asked the Collector to take the possession of the gold in question in December, 1965 and he was not in possession of the primary gold in question as on the date the newly inserted provisions in Defence of India Rules commenced with effect from 1.11.1966. Apparently, unless the assessee had exercised any of the option in terms of Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H of Defence of India Rules, 1962 within four month of 1.11.1966 the assessees case would be governed by Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H. (39). Apparently, unless the assessee had exercised any of the option in terms of Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H of Defence of India Rules, 1962 within four month of 1.11.1966 the assessees case would be governed by Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H. (39). Another important event which has taken place prior to prohibition imposed on ownership, possession and control of primary gold by persons other than refiner and dealer licensed under the Act, the Government of India has promulgated three gold bond schemes as an incentive to the owners of gold whether of primary gold or in the form of articles and ornaments to part with that gold either permanently or temporarily by purchasing different types of gold bonds depending upon the scheme which the person may choose and on such acquisition of gold bonds, the income arising from such gold bonds, the transfer of gold bonds by way of gift and the valuation of the gold bonds as on valuation date were exempted from Income tax, wealth tax, capital gains tax and gift tax. (40). We shall presently refer to the Gold Bond Schemes i.e. 7% Gold Bond Scheme, 1980 and National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 which were notified on 27.02.1965 and 19.10.1965 respectively. (41). In the first scheme namely, 7% Gold Bond 1980 Scheme in lieu of gold tendered, a bond for the value equivalent to the value of the gold was to be issued. The value of the bonds was to be determined in denomination of Rs. 10 and multiplies thereof, the value of the gold was to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 53.58 P. per 10 grammes of .995 fineness equivalent to Rs. 62.50 P. per tola of the same fineness. The bonds were redeemable at per on the 2.03.1980. However, the bonds were to bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of issue. The interest was payable half-yearly on 2nd of September and 2nd of March every year and the interest on the bonds were exempted from Income Tax Act, 1961. The bonds were also exempted from wealth tax and from capital gains tax on their sale. (42). Subscription in 7% Gold Bonds 1980 opened on 2.3.1965 and was to remain open only upto 31.5.1965. No fresh subscription by surrendering gold thereafter was envisaged. (43). The bonds were also exempted from wealth tax and from capital gains tax on their sale. (42). Subscription in 7% Gold Bonds 1980 opened on 2.3.1965 and was to remain open only upto 31.5.1965. No fresh subscription by surrendering gold thereafter was envisaged. (43). Another scheme i.e. National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 was introduced by the Government of India on 19.10.1965. Under this scheme, the bonds were to be issued stating the weight of gold of .995 fineness as determined after assay of the tender. The weight were to be correct to the nearest gramme. The holder of the bonds were to receive an annual payment at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per annum per 10 grammes of gold of .995 fineness as shown in the bonds. The payment of such sum were to be made on 27th October each year, and the first payment was for the period from the date of issue of the Bonds to the 26th of October, 1966, inclusive. On subscription of gold ornaments for acquisition of National Defence Gold Bonds, a premium of Rs. 3.00 per 10 grammes of gold of .995 fineness was allowed and which was to be paid in cash at the time of issue of bonds. The payments so made in cash were to be exempt from Income Tax Act, 1961 as mentioned in clause 4 of the Scheme and the bonds were exempted from wealth tax, capital gains tax on their sale or transfer. The bonds were also exempted from gift tax and were not chargeable to Estate Duty. For acquisition of such bonds, the applicant was to make an application in a prescribed form to the authorities named in clause 8 of the scheme. Subscription to National Defence Gold Bonds 1980 commenced w.e.f. 27.10.1965 and could be made lastly upto 31.1.1966. It could be closed earlier if Government of India so notified. (44). Similarly, 6 1/2 per cent gold bond were also issued for the price of the gold at the time of subscription and the bonds were redeemable in 1977. These bonds were exempted from wealth tax in terms of Section 5(1)(xiva) of the Act of 1957. (45). It could be closed earlier if Government of India so notified. (44). Similarly, 6 1/2 per cent gold bond were also issued for the price of the gold at the time of subscription and the bonds were redeemable in 1977. These bonds were exempted from wealth tax in terms of Section 5(1)(xiva) of the Act of 1957. (45). Thus, with effect from 1.11.1966, the ownership of gold as well as possession and control of primary gold were totally prohibited by law except to the extent which was required to be dealt with in terms of Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) and other ancillary provisions contained in Rule 126H under Chapter XIIA of Defence of India Rules, 1962. Chapter XIIA of Defence of India Rules continued to remain in force until the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968 came into force, which was subsequently replaced by the Gold Control Act, 1968. The prohibition against owing and possessing primary gold continued in absolute form except as permitted under the Act for persons other than the licensed dealer or refiner to the extent provided under the Act of 1968. Except to the limit permitted under the Act of 1968, depending upon the age of the holder, 20 grames and 50 grammes, no primary gold could be owned or possessed by any person. (46). Significantly, while providing restrictions regarding acquisition, possession and disposal of gold under Section 8 of the Act of 1968, that no person shall own or have in his possession, custody or control, or acquire or agree to acquire the ownership, custody or control of, or buy, accept or otherwise receive or agree to buy, accept or otherwise receive any primary gold under Sub-section (1) of Section 8, no procedure was made in the Act for the persons owning or having possession or control over any primary gold as on the commencement of the Act. No provision was made laying down any transitory provisions under which the ownership of primary gold could be converted into ornaments or other articles or it can be sold to the authorized persons and can be encased by the owner or possessor of the gold as was contemplated under Sub-Rules (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126H of Defence of India Rules, 1962. The reason was obvious that since the commencement of Sub-rule (1A) and (1B), noticed above, in Rule 126H after expiry of the period envisaged in different Sub- clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-rule (1B), there was no room left for continued ownership or possession of primary gold by any individual or HUF of any primary gold except to the extent what has been converted into ornaments and sold in terms of the provisions referred to above or otherwise acquired in the manner known to law. Separate provisions were made in respect of primary gold acquired under law subsequent to the commencement of Act of 1968, with which we are not concerned,as it is not the case of anybody that the assessee had acquired primary gold after commencement of amended provision of Sub-rule (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126 H of Defence of India Rules, 1962 or after commencement of Act of 1968. (47). Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, no primary gold could be owned or possessed by the assessee in law since expiry of six months from 1.11.1966 when Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) were inserted in Rule 126H of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The assessee had claimed ownership of gold in question at least since 11.12.1965 and was in possession thereof until it was delivered in the custody of Collector, Chittorgarh on 16.12.1965 to be deposited in Treasury. The assessee has parted with the said primary gold be depositing the same in favour of the Collector, Chittorgarh for a particular purpose. When Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) came into force w.e.f. 1.11.1966, the assessee was claiming ownership of said primary gold but was not in possession of it. Therefore, the assessees case would be governed by Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. (48). When the 1968 Act came into force, there was no scope for owning and possessing any primary gold, since he was not in actual possession of it, his rights qua such primary gold were governed in terms of Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) of Section 126H. (48). When the 1968 Act came into force, there was no scope for owning and possessing any primary gold, since he was not in actual possession of it, his rights qua such primary gold were governed in terms of Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) of Section 126H. Since, no option had been exercised by the assessee within four months of 1.11.1966 under Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H, it became obligation of the person who was in possession of such primary gold to have disposed of the gold in terms of clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H within two months after expiry of 4 months from the date of commencement of provision i.e. from 1.11.1966 and deal with the proceeds in accordance with the manner prescribed under Defence of India Rules, 1962. (49). The question which may call for consideration whether the assessees right to own or the right to get possession of said primary gold survived after the expiry of period prescribed in Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H, which operated in respect of gold which was already in possession of the State Authorities and about which the assessee has claimed his ownership at the time of depositing the same with the Collector, Chittorgarh for weighing the then Prime Minister of India Late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri. (50). Apparently, the primary gold in question was delivered to the custody of the Collector, Chittorgarh to be used for the purpose of donation later on. The purpose having been lost with the death of the then Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the assessee made a request to give him gold bonds in lieu of gold, as per his own assertion, the situation crystallized into that the assessee was the owner of the primary gold on 1.11.1966 when Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) were inserted in Rule 126H and the gold was in possession of the Government Treasury at Chittorgarh through Collector. The possession of the Collector was lawful. The possession of the Collector was lawful. The assessee could in terms of Rule 126H [1B) (ii)] of Defence of India Rules exercise the option either to retain the gold in possession of Collector by recovering the gold in question from the Collector and converting the primary gold into ornaments or sell the same to licensed dealer or to authorize the Collector to get the said primary gold converted into gold ornaments or to sell it to the authorized persons and encash the same before he could claim the price of the gold in question or the converted ornaments. However, there is nothing to suggest the assessee taking recourse to such options. (51). This failure on the part of the assessee to do so, obligated the Collector in whose custody the primary gold was lying under Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H to transact the gold and raise the price of the gold in question and deal with the proceeds in accordance with the manner prescribed under the law. Any person, who was owning or was in possession of any primary gold or who claimed ownership in primary gold as on 1.11.1966 but was not in possession thereof was required to act in terms of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H. His rights qua such primary gold stood determined in accordance with said provisions. Upon failure of person claiming ownership to exercise any of options open to him, the ownership of primary gold would come to an end on expiry of six months from 1.11.1996 and his right would be to get the price of gold at which it could be sold upto 1.5.1967. It cannot be said that notwithstanding clear statutory provisions, upon his failure to act in terms of Sub-clause (iii) of the Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126H, the assessee continued to own primary gold even after expiry of six months from 1.11.1996 when he did not exercise his option to convert primary gold into ornament within that period in any manner. (52). (52). From the date of the insertion of Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) in Rule 126H, the right of person owning primary gold was confined either to have within six months of 1.11.1966 the primary gold converted into gold ornaments and retain the gold in the form of ornaments and make it subject matter of declaration under the said rules or he could encash the primary gold during that period. (53). The distinction, we have noticed above, between the owner possessing any primary gold on the commencement of the aforesaid provisions and the owner not in physical possession of the primary gold on such date is clear. In the former case, the owner had six months period to exercise either of the options to sell or convert primary gold into cash or ornament and act accordingly. In the latter case, the owner without possession of the primary gold, had to exercise his option to retain the gold as converted into ornaments or to encash the gold within four months period by issuing instruction to person in physical possession of Gold in this regard. After expiry of four months period, without exercising the options as aforesaid, a consequence was not to make the owner defaulter and subject to confiscation of gold, but his rights stood merged into obligation of the person in possession of such primary gold to sell that gold within two months by disposing the gold to a licensed dealer or refiner, as the case may, and to dispose of the proceeds of sale in accordance with law confined the right of owner to such proceeds. That is to say that if there was no liability to be discharged against the security of the gold, proceeds would be payable to the owner. If the primary gold was encumbered, the proceeds could first be utilised to discharge the encumbrances. The costs, if any incurred, in selling the primary gold by the person in possession were to be deducted from such proceeds. (54). If the primary gold was encumbered, the proceeds could first be utilised to discharge the encumbrances. The costs, if any incurred, in selling the primary gold by the person in possession were to be deducted from such proceeds. (54). However, one thing was very clear that statutory prohibition existed against owning and possessing the primary gold with effect from 1.11.1966 and the person owning and in possession of primary gold on such date, their right to ownership or primary gold or right to possess the gold in the form of primary gold was not forfeited or confiscated but was to be brought to a close through the procedure envisaged in terms of Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126 H. However, in such matter until the expiry of such period as prescribed under the aforesaid provisions, neither the continued ownership nor continued possession of the primary gold by any person was in contravention of the above provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Therefore, question of confiscation of gold could not arise. The juridical ownership of primary gold in private person ceased to be recognized by law, on expiry of six months from 1.11.1966 and Sub-rule (1A) & (1B) operated in respect of such primary gold. (55). Possession of primary gold being not with the assessee, but with the State could not have been unlawful so as to attract provisions of confiscation. Hence to ignore the provisions of Gold Control, on the ground that since primary gold was not confiscated by appropriate order, it continued to be owned by the assessee or for that matter other individual in the present circumstances was not warranted. The Tribunal seriously erred in not examining the relevant provision of Gold Control law on assumption of continuous ownership of primary gold in the absence of order of confiscation. (56). In this connection, it may be stated that if the person in possession had failed to dispose of primary gold within the aforesaid provisions, he would certainly be liable for breach of the provisions and would have been subjected to the consequence in the form of confiscation of primary gold and imposition of penalty as well as prosecution under the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. (57). (57). However, the Rule 126W envisaged that nothing in Part XIIA shall apply to or in relation to any gold belonging to, or in the possession or under the control of, the Government. (58). As we have noticed above, the primary gold in question was in possession of the Government as it was delivered by the assessee to the Collector, Chittorgarh for placing it into Government Treasury on 16.12.1965, the Government in possession of primary gold owned by other person could not be obligated to dispose of the gold in open market to licensed dealer as it would be contrary to object of Gold Control law. However that will not alter the position of the person claiming ownership of such gold at the commencement of Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126H of Defence of India Rules, 1962. (59). Apparently, looking to the provisions of the Rules, the continued possession of the Government would not have been contrary to the provisions of Rules of 1962 inasmuch as the ultimate destination of primary gold under the Scheme of Rules would be the Government, Government Agencies, licensed dealers or refiners to the extent permitted by the Government. However, this exclusion of the Government permitting it to remain in continuous possession of the gold would not permit continued ownership or right to possession of primary gold in the assessee or person like him in so far as primary gold was concerned. It was an obligation for the assessee or the persons like him to make an option to the Government for disposing of the gold claimed to be owned by him either by delivery of such gold for making ornaments possession of which could be claimed by him or to sell it in market and claim to proceeds within the prescribed period. (60). In the circumstances as have arisen in the present case on expiry of four months from the date of commencement of the provisions i.e. from 1.11.1966, without exercise of any option by the assessee, the assessees right would have been only to receive the price of the gold at which at could be sold within a period of two months from the expiry of four months from 1.11.1966, as per rules framed in this regard. (61). (61). It was not envisaged under the provisions aforesaid that in the absence of exercise of option by a owner who is not in possession of the primary gold, his ownership would come to an end without any consideration in lieu of the gold. Two options rested with the assessee which was ultimately reduced to one by non exercise of option to authorize the person in possession to convert the primary gold into ornaments in terms of the option. The owner of primary gold in such event could be held entitled to receive the price of the gold which it could fetch within two months period from expiry of four months from 1.11.1966. The right to possession or to own the primary gold in the aforesaid circumstances did not survive beyond six months w.e.f. 1.11.1966. (62). The position did not alter with the promulgation of the Gold Control Act, 1968, under Section 8 of which, prohibition against the ownership and possession of the primary gold continued. No corresponding provisions to Sub-rule (1B) were made in the Act of 1968, either extending the period for retaining the primary gold or giving fresh option, nor any provision was made under the Rules of 1962 for extending the period within which the primary gold was to be dealt with by the owner under any circumstance. (63). The aforesaid scheme of the Defence of India Rules or Gold Control Act leads us to conclude that on expiry of six months period from the date of commencement of Sub-rule (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126H, when the respondent-assessee failed to exercise his option for authorising the person in possession of the primary gold, earlier owned by him, to convert it into ornaments his right survived to receive its money value which it could fetch within a period of two months from the expiry of period of four months from 1.11.1966. In these circumstances, during the Assessment ears in question which all fell after coming into force of Gold Control Act, 1968 and Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126H of Defence of India Rules, 1962 had operated long before the valuation date of each of the assessment years, he had right only to receive money in lieu of primary gold in question at a price which it could fetch between 1.3.1967 to 30.4.1967. The Government being not in any compulsion to sale the gold in view of the provision of Rule 126W of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, ordinarily, the assessee must be held entitled to receive the market proceeds at maximum price of the primary gold which prevailed during that entire period, subject to encumbrances, if any. That right which crystallized as on 30.4.1967 continued to exist in favour of the owner of the primary gold until the proceeds are disbursed. If under the law a person who was under an obligation to deal with the sale proceeds of such primary gold was liable to pay interest to the person entitled to such payments on its belated payment, the assessee as the owner of the primary gold in question at the relevant time may be entitled to receive such interest also until the payment is made. The accumulated interest alongwith proceeds which it could have fetched by 30.4.1966 became the taxable wealth as on each valuation date. (64). Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is the charging section which inter alia imposes tax on net wealth of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company at the rate or rates specified in Schedule I. (65). Net wealth has been defined under Section 2 (m) to mean the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date. (66). The definition of asset has been indicated under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1957 to include property of every description, movable or immovable. (67). The expression ``Belonging has been explained in Blacks Law Dictionary to mean that which is connected with a principal or greater thing; an appendage, an appurtenance; also, ownership. In the context of Wealth Tax, the word ``belonging of assets has been used as ownership in its comprehensive sense. (68). ``Ownership in a most significant denomination has been described by jurisprudence pundits to mean `that a person have, any right that is vested in him by law, and he may use it according to its own. In the context of Wealth Tax, the word ``belonging of assets has been used as ownership in its comprehensive sense. (68). ``Ownership in a most significant denomination has been described by jurisprudence pundits to mean `that a person have, any right that is vested in him by law, and he may use it according to its own. It may be in relation to tangible or intangible property. The ``Property in its comprehensive meaning includes the tangible and intangible both properties. (69). In the context of Wealth Tax, net wealth or assets include all the rights in relation to a property possessed by any person in its comprehensive sense and unless otherwise provided under the Act,the value of every right in whatever form possessed by a person in relation to an asset, value has to be included in aggregate value of all assets, on valuation date. (70). Both the learned counsel for the assessee as well as for the Revenue have cited number of decisions on the principle of valuation of different assets. However, none of the cases cited by the counsel have bearing on the issue that fell for consideration in the light of clear provisions of Gold Control law which has come into existence after the primary gold alleged to be owned by the assessee was delivered to the State Government in December, 1965 affecting the right to own and possess any primary gold by any person. (71). Notwithstanding the admissions as to the title of primary gold, the right of the person vis-a-vis such primary gold has to be determined in the light of the statutory provisions in relation to right to own and possess the primary gold. The principle of estoppal arising from the admission cannot be held to be against the statutory provisions and the rights to the asset or the property belonging to the assessee as on the valuation date has to be decided in the light of the relevant statutory provisions keeping in view the claim of the assessee to the ownership over the principal asset before the commencement of such provisions and the right which the assessee possesses in respect of such primary gold on valuation date. It is only the value of such rights which the assessee is found to be entitled, on valuation date, which fell subsequent to provision regarding ownership and possession of primary gold were interdicted by statutory provisions can be included in the aggregate of net wealth. His admission of ownership of the primary gold since 16.12.1965 has to be adjudged in the light of statutory provisions affecting such ownership right. (72). None of the cases cited at Bar deals with this aspect of the matter where right to ownership in the sense of full disposition and power to enjoy the asset in the manner which is chosen by the owner has undergone change by the statutory provisions. Therefore, we refrain from discussing those cases. (73). However, it is demonstratively clear from the decision cited at Bar by the learned counsel for the assessee which are referable to the acquisition of immovable property that the Courts have consistently held that once the property become the subject matter of acquisition, the owner of such property retained a right only to receive compensation in lieu of the property so acquired and not of the land itself. In such case on each valuation date, until compensation is determined, market value of land on successive valuation date cannot be included in net wealth. But the estimated value of compensation determined as per provisions of respective acquisition law only is to be included in net wealth. (74). If the same principles were to be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the commencement of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126 H of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the right which the owner of primary gold at the commencement of the provisions possessed in relation to the primary gold stood converted into the rights which such person held on the expiry of six months depending upon the option which he has made or on his failure to make any such option, the course which the statute ordinarily allowed to be followed. (75). (75). In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the asset which belongs to the assessee as on the valuation date, was the right of assessee to receive value of the primary gold in question as on 1.5.1967, and if law provided a reasonable rate of interest until the payment is made, then the right to receive such interest is to be included in assessment of net wealth of the assessee since 1971 onwards he could not own primary gold as such on the respective valuation dates but value of his right qua such primary gold has to be included in his net wealth. (76). Hence, the Tribunal was manifestly in error of law by ignoring the legal effect of provisions of Gold Control Statutes as existed from time to time having vital bearing on question of right owned by the assessee in relation to primary gold, the asset in question on valuation dates. Taking into consideration the market value of primary gold on each valuation date or to take its discounted value to be value of assessees asset, only because of its title being disputed by Gunwantlal, on the respective valuation dates, cannot be sustained inasmuch, as on respective valuation dates, ownership in Gold did not vest in either of them and it did not belong to either of them. One cannot assume that the assessee or for that matter anyone owned the primary gold in question contrary to the provisions of law. (77). We may clarify that even if the assessee was not in a position to sell the gold in the open market whether due to disputed title or otherwise, discounting its market value for the purpose of wealth tax is founded on total misconception. Therefore, the contention that value of the same may be taken to be discounted at nil or smaller sum cannot be sustained. If the primary gold belongs to the assessee on valuation date, the title dispute does not discount the value of primary gold. The position of market value of gold cannot be equated with market value of encumbered or disputed immovable properties. (78). Moreover, the actual salability or marketability of an asset is not the precondition for attributing any value to a given asset. For example, a heirloom belonging to a family by law or custom be not alienable. The position of market value of gold cannot be equated with market value of encumbered or disputed immovable properties. (78). Moreover, the actual salability or marketability of an asset is not the precondition for attributing any value to a given asset. For example, a heirloom belonging to a family by law or custom be not alienable. It cannot be sold and purchased in open market. Nonetheless it has its moneys value. For finding its value it has to be assumed that there exist a free market, where there is a willing seller and a willing buyer of such an asset. On that assumption, the market value has to be arrived at. But this principle applies where the belonging of such asset or the ownership of such asset by such person is countenanced by law. If ownership itself is not countenanced by law or ownership in a particular form of an asset is not countenanced by law, one cannot assume that still a person owns or has right to possess such asset or such an asset belongs to him, in contravention of law, when no such contravention has also been shown. (79). In the present case, as we have noticed the primary gold in question ceased to be a commodity or asset which could belong to the assessee on the expiry of six months period from 1.11.1966 i.e. the commencement of Sub-rules (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126 H of Defence of India Rules, 1962. The asset which the assessee held on the valuation dates subsequent thereto, was his right to receive the value of the primary gold as on 1.5.1967 and the value of this right alone can be included in his net wealth of the assessee. The ownership and right to possess the primary gold of the assessee had been brought to an end under the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The ownership and possession of primary gold has also been prohibited under the Gold Control Act, 196. (80). The ownership and right to possess the primary gold of the assessee had been brought to an end under the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The ownership and possession of primary gold has also been prohibited under the Gold Control Act, 196. (80). Coming to the other contention of the assessee that because the assessee had applied for gold bonds in lieu of the primary gold, after his offer to weigh the then Prime Minister of India in primary gold was frustrated on account of his death, therefore, he should be assumed to have applied for the be deemed to entitled to receive gold bonds in lieu of said primary gold which were exempted from levy of wealth tax under Section 5(1)(xiva). This contention is noticed to be rejected. (81). It is no where the case of the assessee that he even applied to competent authority under the respective Gold Bond Scheme in prescribed form for acquiring any Gold Bonds by surrendering specific quantity of Gold. He merely relies on his request to Government for refunding his gold in the form of Gold Bonds. This act even if assumed to be true does not fulfill the condition on which the assessee could be said to have become even entitled to received Gold Bonds of any particular description. (82). We find that the Gold Bonds Schemes were not open indefinitely to be available by the owner and possession of the gold. We have noticed above that the prohibition against ownership and possession of any primary gold was brought into effect with effect from 1.11.1966. The Gold Bond Scheme namely, 7% Gold Bond Scheme, 1980 redeemable at per on the 2nd of March, 1980 and the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 Scheme both were brought into existence in 1965 prior to offering of gold for weighment of the then Prime Minister Late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri in December, 1965. The first scheme was notified on 27.02.1965. According to this Scheme, subscriptions for the issue of 7% Gold Bonds were to be received without limit of amount from the 2.03.1965, until 31.05.1965, both days inclusive, but the Government of India reserved the right to close the issue earlier without notice. The subscriptions were to be in the form of gold, gold coin or gold ornaments. According to this Scheme, subscriptions for the issue of 7% Gold Bonds were to be received without limit of amount from the 2.03.1965, until 31.05.1965, both days inclusive, but the Government of India reserved the right to close the issue earlier without notice. The subscriptions were to be in the form of gold, gold coin or gold ornaments. The date of issue of the Bonds were to be the date on which the gold is tendered at the receiving office. (83). We are not concerned with the details of the scheme except with the date of issue of such gold bonds. The interest payable on the bond amount was exempted from wealth tax. The capital gains arising from transfer of bonds were also not subjected to tax so also the bonds were exempted from wealth tax. Further as we have noticed above, that the desirous person who wanted to acquire the 7% Gold Bonds, 1980 could do so only until 31.05.1965 and the scheme was not open thereafter. While the Scheme envisaged its closure earlier then 31.05.1965, it did not envisage extension of this time. In this Scheme, the applicant was to be paid the price of the gold at the rate specified in Clause 3 of the Scheme i.e. 53.58 P. per 10 grammes of .995 fineness equivalent to Rs. 62.50 P. per tola of the same fineness. (84). It is not even the case of assessee that he surrendered Gold in question at the receiving officer prior to 31.5.1965. Hence he did not acquire any right in respect of 7% Gold Bonds 1980. (85). In contract, on 19.10.1965, another Scheme was opened by the Central Government known as National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 Scheme. It opened as under:- ``Subscriptions for the issue of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 will be received without limit of amount from the 27.10.1965 to the 31.01.1966, both days inclusive, but the Government of India reserve the right to close the issue earlier without notice. Subscriptions will be in the form of gold, gold coins and/or gold ornaments. The date of issue of the Bonds will be the date on which the gold is tendered at the receiving officer. (86). Subscriptions will be in the form of gold, gold coins and/or gold ornaments. The date of issue of the Bonds will be the date on which the gold is tendered at the receiving officer. (86). Under the aforesaid Scheme instead of issuing redeemable bonds in a specified sum of money, the bonds were issued in terms of the weight of the gold, gold coins and/or gold ornaments delivered for the purpose of obtaining the National Defence Bonds, 1980. Again the subscribed gold could be received only between 19.10.1965 to 31.1.1966 and not thereafter. Here it is not the case of the assessee that he had subscribed or tendered the Gold in question at the receiving officer by 31.01.1966. In the absence of such tender the assessee did not acquire any right to receive National Defence Gold Bond 1980 also. (87). It may be noticed that both the schemes had come prior to the imposition of restriction on ownership and possession of primary gold. The return envisaged under the National Defence Gold Bond, 1980 scheme was in the form of the primary gold, therefore, the question had arisen when the time become right for redemption of National Defence Bold Bonds, 1980 by returning the gold in terms of the weight entered in the gold bonds? Obviously, unless otherwise devised on the return of the primary gold, the ownership and possession would have been contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 which has replaced the Defence of India Rules, 1962. That led to issue of a Government Order dated 23nd of October, 1980. (88). Under the said order, the Administrator in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of Section 8 and 9, read with sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the offices of Reserve Bank of India, the branches of the State Bank of India and its subsidiary banks, to deliver, transfer or otherwise dispose of primary gold in the form of standard gold bars and discs to the last holder of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as recipient). The recipient of gold bars and gold discs, if it were the bank, was under an obligation within a period of seven working days from the date of the acquisition, acceptance or receipt, as the case may be, sell such gold to the Reserve Bank of India and the acquire, accept or otherwise receive gold so sold. If the recipient was other than the Bank, he has given the option as envisaged under Sub-rule (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126H in its Clause (b) that within a period of six months from the date of the acquisition, acceptance or receipt of primary gold, as the case may, either sell the said gold to a licensed dealer or certified goldsmith or get the said gold converted into ornaments through a licensed dealer or a certified goldsmith. Obviously, in such cases, Clause (ii) and (iii) of Sub-rule (1B) of Rule 126(H) would not operate. (89). Thus, under the Scheme, firstly, there was no occasion for the assessee to have opted for acquisition of the 7% Gold Bonds, 1980 or the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, as the case may, nor it is the case of the assessee that he made any such application to acquire National Defence Gold Bonds before the Scheme which had closed on 31.01.1966. It is not the case of the assessee that he has at any time applied for acquisition of bonds under any of such scheme before the closure of the date up to which the applications for acquisition of such bonds could be received. Merely submitting a letter somewhere in 1966 that since the purpose for which the gold was delivered to the Government Treasury in December, 1965 has failed, he may be given the gold bonds in lieu thereof was not to make him acquirer of any of the Gold Bonds, nor would it bring into existence state of affairs where the assessee can be deemed to be holder of any gold bonds under any of the gold bonds schemes stated above, which were exempted from wealth tax under Section 5(1)(xiva) of the Act of 1957. (90). (90). In view of the conclusions arrived in the light of the provisions referred hereinabove, firstly, that under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and then thereafter under the Gold Control Act, 1968, the ownership of Gold in question ceased to vest in the assessee on 30.4.1966 and it did not being to assessee, so as to be valued on each successive valuation dates, but he has only a right to get the money realised or moneys worth if the primary gold was with the Government on the date of expiry of period of six months. (91). Assuming for the sake of arguments, as suggested by the assessee that Gold in question belonged to him, a further question arises that when the asset to which, the assessee claimed ownership but title of which is disputed, the value of such asset need reasonably be discounted? (92). We are of the opinion that so far as the primary gold or the gold ornaments, articles of specified price being quoted or other movable property is concerned, there is no room left for evaluating the value at a discounted price. On each valuation dates, every person claiming right to such movable property may be assessed at its full value. Particularly in the case of gold, if it were to be taken to be the asset belonging to the assessee, no doubt should arise in ones mind about its market value notwithstanding dispute about title of the holder. Unlike immovable property, primary gold is akin to cash in hand. Like right to claim cash in possession of a third party cannot be discounted notwithstanding some other person may also be claiming right to such cash. The value of cash does not diminish because of such dispute. The fact that because of dispute, if the parties decides to settle the same they may do at a lesser amount does not diminish the value of right to received cash or gold. (93). The Wealth Tax Appeals are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to Tribunal for passing fresh orders in the light of aforesaid conclusions. (94). In all the appeals submitted by the assessee second common question raised is that, ``Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Megjji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation? (94). In all the appeals submitted by the assessee second common question raised is that, ``Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Megjji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation? We notice that there being no dispute that two persons, viz. the assessee in present case Ganpatlal (HUF) and M/s. Megjji Girdhar Lal (HUF) represented by Gunwant Lal, whose cases are within the jurisdiction of M.P.High Court, are claiming title to the right that survived in respect of primary gold to the owner, in view of the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and Gold Control Act, 1968. In this connection, the title to such right has to be decided by the Court in the pending matters. However, the assessments in the bonds of both the assesses of the same wealth cannot stand together ultimately. One of the assessment has to remain protective. Therefore, after determination of the respective title to the rights in relation to the primary gold, in question, ultimately the person found entitled to that right shall alone be liable to pay the wealth tax in respect of it and the other shall be entitled to refund of the wealth tax, if any tax is recovered from him. Question No. (C): (95). In Appeals No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 preferred by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1995-96 to 1998-99, an additional question has been framed to the effect that, ``Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment? (96). We are of the opinion that this question really does not arise for consideration in this case as it is not substantial question of law. As a matter of fact, it was the assessees admitted case that the correct status of the assessee is HUF only as claimed by him in the returns submitted by him. The mistake stated to be a typographical and clerical error. On being pointed out, the mistake has been rectified by the department. The Department has also admitted the case of the assessee and has assessed as HUF only. The mistake stated to be a typographical and clerical error. On being pointed out, the mistake has been rectified by the department. The Department has also admitted the case of the assessee and has assessed as HUF only. In view thereof, merely for the purpose of correction in the order by bringing the assessment to the correct status about which no dispute existed, no question of law can be said to be arise for carrying out this typographical error. There is no question of annulling the assessment altogether on that basis. In fact there had been really no dispute between the Department and Assessee about the status in which the assessee is to be assessed to wealth tax in respect of gold in question. We, therefore, hold that the assessee has rightly been assessed in the status of HUF and as claimed by him in his returns for the assessment years in question. His status was shown as Individual only by mistake or not by a conscious determination of the status contrary to what has been claimed by the assessee himself. (97). As a result of the aforesaid, our conclusion is that the primary gold in question so delivered to the Government Treasury on 16.12.1965 by the respondent-assessee could not have been owned or possessed by the him after the expiry of six months period from the commencement of Sub-rule (1A) and (1B) of Rule 126H of Defence of India Rules, 1962 i.e. from 1.11.1966. However, on the expiry of the period envisaged under Sub-rule (1B) (iii) of Rule 126H, the right which belong to the assessee was to receive cash value in lieu of the primary gold as on 1.5.1967. The value of such right was includible in the net wealth of the assessee on the each successive valuation date. In case he is found to be entitled to any interest on such amount, accumulated amount of interest upto each valuation date will also be includible in net wealth of the assessee. The assessee is not entitled to be a deemed holder of 6 1/2 % Gold Bonds, or 7% Gold Bonds 1980, or National Defence Gold Bonds under the respective schemes, therefore, he is not entitled to claim exemption on the value of the asset belonging to him under Section 5(1)(xiva). The assessee is not entitled to be a deemed holder of 6 1/2 % Gold Bonds, or 7% Gold Bonds 1980, or National Defence Gold Bonds under the respective schemes, therefore, he is not entitled to claim exemption on the value of the asset belonging to him under Section 5(1)(xiva). In the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be held that the value in respect of the asset in question be treated to be nil. (98). As result, the question referred by the Tribunal in References Cases, whether at the instance of assessee or Revenue are answered in accordance with the aforesaid conclusions. The Tribunal may decided the appeals before it in the light of aforesaid conclusions. (99). There shall no orders as to the costs. APPENDIX A Reference(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 1. DBWTR No.51/1987 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 31.03.1970 31.03.1971 31.03.1972 31.03.1973 31.03.1974 31.03.1975 31.03.1976 31.03.1977 Common Question of Law referred: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee to be the owner of any interest in the gold in question and estimating the value of the assessees interest in the said good at 25% of the market value of the gold on the relevant valuation dates." 2. DBWTR No.52/1987 Question of Law referred: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee to be the owner of any interest in the gold in question and estimating the value of the assessees interest in the said good at 25% of the market value of the gold on the relevant valuation dates." 3. DBWTR No.5/1998 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 31.03.1983 31.03.1984 31.03.1985 31.03.1986 31.03.1987 31.03.1988 Reference(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date Assessees Question: "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee to be the owner of the gold in question and estimating the value of the assessees interest in the said gold at 25% of the market value of the gold on the relevant valuation dates ?" Departments Question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 kgs. Of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date (s)?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 1. DBWTA No.06/2000 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 31.03.1989 31.03.1990 31.03.1991 31.03.1992 31.03.1993 31.03.1994 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s MeghJI Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the Appellant suffers from vice of double Taxation ?" 2. DBWTA No.03/2001 1990-91 31.03.1990 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation?" 3. DBWTA No.01/2001 1991-92 31.03.1991 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation ?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 4. DBWTA No.05/2001 1992-93 31.03.1992 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation 5. DBWTA No.02/2001 1993-94 31.03.1993 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market, value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation?" 6. DBWTA No.04/2001 1994-95 31.03.1994 Questions of law framed: (1) ""Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law inholding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF) , its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation ?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 7. DBWTA No.11/2004 1995-96 31.03.1995 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF) , its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation ?" (3) "Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment?" 8. DBWTA No.09/2004 1996-97 31.03.1996 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation?" (3) ""Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF. instead of annulling the impugned assessment?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 9. DBWTA No.10/2004 1997-98 31.03.1997 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF) , its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation ?" (3) "Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment?" 10. DBWTA No.08/2004 1998-99 31.03.1998 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation ?" (3) "Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Assessee S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 7. DBWTA No.12/2004 1999-2000 31.03.1999 Questions of law framed: (1) "Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that 25% of the market value of the gold need to be included in assessees net wealth?"" (2) "Whether the impugned gold having been assessed in the Wealth of M/s. Meghji Girdhar Lal (HUF), its inclusion in the hands of the appellant suffers from vice of double taxation?" (3) "Whether the learned Tribunal had material and was right in law in changing the status from individual to HUF instead of annulling the impugned assessment? Reference(s) at the instance of Revenue S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 1. DBWTR No.49/1987 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 31.03.1970 31.03.1971 31.03.1972 31.03.1973 31.03.1974 31.03.1975 31.03.1976 31.03.1977 Question of law referred: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A. Tribunal was justified in estimating the value of 57 kilos of Gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date (s)." 2. DBWTR No.50/1987 1975-76 31.03.1975 Question of law referred: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A. Tribunal was justified in estimating the value of 57 kilos of Gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date (s)." Appeal(s) at the instance of Revenue S.No. Case No. Asstt. Year Valuation Date 1. DBWTA No.08/2001 1989-90 31.03.1989 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 2. DBWTA No.74/2001 1990-91 31.03.1990 Question of law framed. Year Valuation Date 1. DBWTA No.08/2001 1989-90 31.03.1989 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 2. DBWTA No.74/2001 1990-91 31.03.1990 Question of law framed. facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 3. DBWTA No.09/2001 1991-92 31.03.1991 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 4. DBWTA No.31/2001 1992-93 31.03.1992 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 5. DBWTA No.36/2001 1993-94 31.03.1993 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Revenue 6. DBWTA No.3173/2004 (DRJ) 1995-96 31.03.1995 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the I.T.A.T. was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 7. DBWTA No.3170/2004 (DRJ) 1996-96 31.03.1996 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 8. DBWTA No.3172/2004 (DRJ) 1997-98 31.03.1997 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 9. DBWTA No.3172/2004 (DRJ) 1997-98 31.03.1997 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" 9. DBWTA No.3171/2004 (DRJ) 1998-998 31.03.1998 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?" Appeal(s) at the instance of Revenue 10. DBWTA No.3169/2004 (DRJ) 1999-2000 31.03.1999 Question of law framed: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in estimating the value of 57 Kilos of gold @ 25% of its market value on relevant valuation date(s)?"