Judgment : Chitra Venkataraman, J. The following substantial questions of law are raised by the Revenue in preferring the above Tax Case (Appeals) relating to the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to value the properties at Rs.2,500/-per cent for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99 ? and 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that wealth tax payable by the assessee is to be treated as debt and the same has to be excluded from the wealth for the purpose of wealth tax assessment ? " 2. As far as the second issue is concerned, we find that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal followed the decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1984-85 to 1987-88. The claim of the assessee for the deduction of wealth tax liability from the net wealth of the assessee as computed in terms of Section 40 of the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter called as the "Act") was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, by placing reliance on the Clarification issued in Circular No.663 dated 23.09.1993, submitted that upto 1992-93 and till the amendment to Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, with effect from 01.04.1993, for the purpose of computing the taxable net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax liability was not a debt incurred by the assessee in relation to the assets taxable under the Wealth Tax Act, but was a liability created by the statute. Thus only under the amended provision effective from 01.04.1993, Wealth Tax is allowed deduction. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue further submits that in view of the said amendment, the assessee is ineligible to claim such deduction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Madras Vs. K.S.N.Bhatt reported in (1984) 145 ITR 1 (SC), in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Vs. Vadilal Lallubhai reported in (1984) 145 ITR 7 (SC) and in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat Vs. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Madras Vs. K.S.N.Bhatt reported in (1984) 145 ITR 1 (SC), in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Vs. Vadilal Lallubhai reported in (1984) 145 ITR 7 (SC) and in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta reported in (2012) 145 ITR 11 (SC), wherein, it was held that the tax liability under the Income Tax Act, Gift Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act were debt owed by the assessee on a valuation date; even though such determination might be subsequent, i.e., after the valuation date. Thus, where there was no tax liability, there was no debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date. 5. We have perused the provisions of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, which was amended with effect from 01.04.1993. Thus, where there was no tax liability, there was no debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date. 5. We have perused the provisions of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, which was amended with effect from 01.04.1993. Thus, a reading of the provisions of the Act as it stood prior to 01.04.1993 and with effect from 01.04.1993 read as under:- " Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act prior to 01.04.1993: "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this 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 other than-- (i) debts which under section 6 are not to be taken into account; (ii) debts which are secured on or which have been incurred in relation to, any property in respect of which wealth-tax is not chargeable under this Act ; and (iii) the amount of the tax, penalty or interest payable in consequence of any order passed under or in pursuance of this Act or any law relating to taxation of income or profits, or the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (34 of 1953), the Expenditure tax Act, 1957 (29 of 1957), or the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958),-- (a) which is outstanding on the valuation date and is claimed by the assessee in appeal, revision or other proceeding as not being payable by him, or (b) which, although not claimed by the assessee as not being payable by him, is nevertheless outstanding for a period of more than twelve months on the valuation date ; Explanation 1.--A building or part thereof referred to in clause (iii), clause (iiia) or clause (iiib) of section 27 of the Income-tax Act shall be includible in the net wealth of the person who is deemed under the said clause to be the owner of that building or part thereof ; Explanation 2.--Where a debt falling under sub-clause (ii) is secured on, or has been incurred in relation to, any asset which is not to be included wholly or partly in the net wealth by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 5, the amount of such debt shall, for the purposes of the said sub-clause, be limited to the value of the said asset which is not includible in the net wealth under sub-section (1A) of section 5. " " Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act with effect from 01.04.1993: "2(m) "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this 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 which have been incurred in relation to the said assets;) " The amendment made shows that the substantive part of the expression of "the debts owed by the assessee" has not undergone any change even under the amendment brought about; consequently, we have no hesitation in applying the law declared by the Apex Court and hold that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the Wealth Tax payable by the assessee was to be treated as a debt for the purpose of calculating the net wealth. 6. As regards the question of valuation of the Kodaikanal property, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the same rate at Rs.2,500/-per cent for the assessment years under consideration. 7. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that as regards the valuation on the property at Kodaikanal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal based on the valuation determined in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Thus, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the rate at the rate of Rs.2,500/-per cent for all the assessment years under consideration. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue further pointed out that while considering the valuation of the property at Kochadai, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the immovable property had to be valued as per Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons (1994) (210 ITR 886). When the property at Kodaikanal is to be valued as per Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act, the same yardstick ought to have been extended while considering the valuation of the Kochadai property. 8. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons (1994) (210 ITR 886). When the property at Kodaikanal is to be valued as per Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act, the same yardstick ought to have been extended while considering the valuation of the Kochadai property. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, however, submitted that the said issue was not before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and hence, does not arise out of the order. He further pointed out that the relevance to Schedule III of Wealth Tax Act was not there even before the Assessing Officer, consequently, the same may not be considered by this Court at this stage. 9. We do not accept with the said line of reasoning of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that based on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the earlier years, the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt 50% of the value of the property and while determining the value, 5% increase would be justified in determining the fair market value of the property. This was challenged in appeal by the Revenue as well as by the assessee. While considering the same, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, accordingly, applied its own decision for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, as held by the Apex Court in the case of CWT Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons reported in (1994) 210 ITR 886, the rules on valuation of the immovable property are framed as a matter of State policy and when there are rules, they have to be followed. Thus, the assessee cannot disregard Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act, which is mandatory and as such, the question of adopting the value as by way of enhancing at certain particular percentage cannot be upheld by this Court. When it is purely a question of law as to the method of valuation to be adopted, not valuation as such for consideration, we have no hesitation in rejecting the assessee's plea for a remand. In the circumstances, we accept the plea of the Revenue and thereby the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer to adopt Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act in valuing the property at Kodaikanal. In the circumstances, we accept the plea of the Revenue and thereby the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer to adopt Schedule III to Wealth Tax Act in valuing the property at Kodaikanal. To that extent, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. 11. In the result, the Tax Case (Appeals) stand disposed of on the above terms. No costs.