Judgment ( 1. ) THE Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Indore has filed this appeal under Section 27a of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction of the liability to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs being security deposit against the property let out was allowable even after giving a specific finding that the assessee did not owe any loan or debt in relation to the property let out and in the face, the specific provisions of Section 40 (2) of the Finance Act, 1983 whereby only those debts can be allowed which are secured on or which have been incurred in relation to assets upon which the wealth-tax is chargeable as per Sub-section (3) of the said Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 ? ( 2. ) THE assessment pertains to the year 1989-90. The assessee is a private limited company. It filed its return of wealth for the said assessment year on December 29, 1989 declaring net wealth of Rs. 20,42,896. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into an agreement with the Banque Nationale De Paris vide agreement dated March 7, 1988, according to which the assessee company had permitted the said Banque to use the licensed premises on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. Under the said agreement the assessee-company had received a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs without interest subject to its refund, when the licensee vacated the premises. Accordingly the said amount was shown as liability and deduction of the same was claimed while determining the net wealth. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim and treated the same as deposits for the right to use the premises on the ground that the liability is allowable where the value of the assets represent any loan or debt, the assessee was not entitled to any deduction. ( 3. ) THE order of the Assessing Officer was challenged before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), who rejected this appeal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 552. ( 3. ) THE order of the Assessing Officer was challenged before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), who rejected this appeal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 552. On further appeal, however, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore by its impugned order allowed the appeal and hence the Revenue has preferred the above appeal to this Court. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection on the basis of the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Sarita Agrawal AIR 2001 SCW 4780 : [2001] 167 CTR 105 (SC ). In the said decision, their Lordships have observed that when earlier decisions of the Tribunal were not challenged, it was not permissible to the Revenue to assail the subsequent decision on the same point. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel contends that in the present case it is not disputed that in the succeeding year the authority has accepted the deduction of the amount and, therefore, for the uniformity in the assessment the Department is bound to allow the deduction of the amount notwithstanding that every assessment year is a separate assessment year. ( 6. ) THE arguments of learned Counsel suffer from a patent fallacy. It ignores the fact that in the present case it is not in the earlier period that the allowance has been given, but in the subsequent assessment years. For the assessment year to which the appeal relates, it has not been shown that the assessment subsequently filed had come into existence at the time when the matter pertaining to the order in question was considered. Thus, while it is true that for consistency the past assessment may be considered as relevant, the converse is not true. ( 7. ) HOWEVER, in the present case there are other facts and circumstances which ordain deduction of the amount as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal has duly recorded that in view of the consent decree of the Bombay High Court the said claim has been allowed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit for the past years. Accordingly the Tribunal opined that the said deposit of Rs. The Tribunal has duly recorded that in view of the consent decree of the Bombay High Court the said claim has been allowed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit for the past years. Accordingly the Tribunal opined that the said deposit of Rs. 12 lakhs should be treated as a liability in the assessment year in question against the assets of the assessee and the Assessing Officer should allow deduction of the liability of Rs. 12 lakhs from the net wealth of the assessee. ( 8. ) IN view of the position, thus, emerging, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction of the liability to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs being security deposit against the property let out was allowable. ( 9. ) THE question is, therefore, decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-assessee. ( 10. ) THE appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.