"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1992-93) DCIT Central Circle-4(1) R. No. 420, 4th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta, 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400 018 (Applicant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 238/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 1992-93) Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta, 32, Madhuli Apts, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. DCIT Central Circle- 4(1) R. No. 420, 4th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. ABNPM8233B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee arise from the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CWT(A)”] under section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as“the Act”], relating to A.Y. 1992–93. History and Relevant Orders 2. The assessment for A.Y. 1992-93 was initially completed under section 16(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.03.1995, determining net wealth after adding (i) net wealth as on 31.03.1991, (ii) income assessed under the Income-tax Act, (iii) appreciation in value of assets including shares and jewellery, and (iv) value of the stock exchange membership card. 3. The CWT(A) passed an order on 28.03.2003, which was carried in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.12.2007 in WTA No. 63/Mum/2006, set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer (“AO”) for de novo adjudication. 4. Pursuant thereto, the AO framed assessment under section 17 r.w.s. 24 vide order dated 23.12.2008. After appellate proceedings before the CWT(A), the matter again travelled to the Tribunal, which, vide order dated 14.01.2015 in WTA No. Printed from counselvise.com 3 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 35/Mum/2013, restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. 5. In compliance with the above directions, the AO passed an order dated 30.03.2016 under section 17 r.w.s. 24, recomputing net wealth and reiterating additions relating to: - Income for A.Y. 1992-93 - Appreciation in the value of shares (Rs. 396,18,86,766/-) - Appreciation in value of jewellery - Value of BSE membership card (Rs. 62,50,000/-) - Restriction of personal expenses to Rs. 5,00,000/-, and - Allowance of liabilities only to the extent of income-tax and wealth-tax dues. 6. The learned CWT(A), vide order dated 11.01.2023, partly allowed the appeal. The AO thereafter passed order dated 13.03.2023 giving effect to the said appellate order. 7. Both parties filed appeals and cross-appeals. The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.07.2023 (Pages 160–178), issued detailed directions, inter alia: - directing the AO to adopt income of Rs. 32,54,186/- for computing wealth, - restoring the issue of appreciation in shares to the AO to delete additions where purchase and sale figures were unsubstantiated, - deleting the addition relating to BSE membership card, - treating personal expenses and tax liability issues as consequential and remanding aspects to the AO, and Printed from counselvise.com 4 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta - directing recomputation of interest under section 17B, while upholding that interest under section 31 can be charged only from the date of fresh demand. 8. In purported compliance with Tribunal directions, the AO passed order dated 16.04.2024 under section 17 r.w.s. 24. The AO:  adopted income of Rs. 32,54,186/-,  recomputed appreciation in shares based on his working dated 27.02.2024,  disallowed additional liabilities claimed u/s 2(m),  retained personal expenses at Rs. 5,00,000/-,  deleted the BSE card value, and  levied interest under section 17B but not under section 31. 9. The impugned appellate order dated 29.05.2025 was passed under section 23, wherein the learned CWT(A):  corrected AO’s opening figure of net wealth as on 31.03.1991 to Rs. 7,85,50,950/- (based on AO’s own order dated 13.03.2023),  directed adoption of income of Rs. 32,54,186/-,  upheld AO’s computation of appreciation in shares,  sustained restriction of personal expenses to Rs. 5,00,000/-,  rejected assessee’s claim for additional liabilities u/s 2(m),  deleted levy of interest u/s 31, and  upheld levy of interest u/s 17B. Printed from counselvise.com 5 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 10. From the successive assessment orders, the following factual matrix emerges. The assessee is a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, and all her assets stood attached and vested in the Custodian. At the time of the search, no books of account were produced, and the record shows that although large volumes of electronic data were retrieved from computer systems, the seized material was incomplete and did not contain a full reflection of the assessee’s share transactions. In order to reconstruct the financial position of the assessee, the Department relied upon information gathered from multiple external sources including the Reserve Bank of India, the Custodian, various companies, share brokers, the Bombay Stock Exchange, and banking entities. Based on such material, the Assessing Officer computed the opening stock of shares as on 31.03.1991, determined the share transactions undertaken during the financial year 1991–92, and quantified the shortages or excesses of shares as on 08.06.1992. The shortages so worked out were treated by the AO as notional sales effected on 31.03.1992, and profits were estimated by applying the prevailing market rates of that date. In earlier rounds of appellate proceedings, the learned CWT(A) repeatedly recorded disputes raised by the assessee regarding non-supply of the underlying material and supporting data on the basis of which such computations had been made, Printed from counselvise.com 6 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta which remained a matter of persistent controversy between the parties. 11. The assessee, throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, repeatedly requested inspection of and access to all third-party information relied upon by the Department for computing the alleged share transactions, contending that such material formed the very foundation of the additions. It was urged that no addition towards appreciation in the value of shares could be sustained unless each component of the working was supported by primary evidence and the underlying material was furnished to enable effective rebuttal. The assessee also submitted that the membership card of the Bombay Stock Exchange represented only a personal privilege granted to a member and did not constitute an “asset” within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act. Further, it was argued that the liabilities standing in the names of Shri Harshad Mehta, Shri Ashwin Mehta, and Shri J. H. Mehta were incurred for the purpose of acquiring taxable assets and were, therefore, deductible under section 2(m). The assessee also contended that the adoption of the opening wealth figure as on 31.03.1991, as well as the income for A.Y. 1992-93, must necessarily be in conformity with the Assessing Officer’s latest effect-giving orders passed pursuant to Tribunal directions. Objections were additionally raised to the levy of interest under sections 17B and 31 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 7 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 12. Turning to the findings of the Assessing Officer in the order dated 16.04.2024, it was recorded that the assessee did not furnish any rebuttal to the working of appreciation in share value supplied to her on 27.02.2024. The Assessing Officer held that the CA certificate submitted by the assessee under Rule 9A could not be relied upon as it was neither contemporaneous nor supported by verifiable evidence. The Assessing Officer further held that only income-tax and wealth-tax liabilities were eligible for deduction, whereas the other liabilities claimed were not substantiated. The estimate of personal expenses at Rs. 5,00,000 was considered reasonable in the facts of the case. The addition relating to the BSE membership card was deleted in view of the binding directions of the Tribunal, and interest under section 17B was held to be mandatory, while interest under section 31 was held to be not leviable in light of the appellate directions. 13. As regards the findings of the CWT(A) in the order dated 29.05.2025, the learned CWT(A) held that the Assessing Officer’s adoption of Rs. 8,26,33,600/- as the opening figure of net wealth as on 31.03.1991 was incorrect and that, in view of the Assessing Officer’s own giving-effect order dated 13.03.2023, the correct opening figure was Rs. 7,85,50,950/-. The learned CWT(A) also directed that income for A.Y. 1992-93 must be adopted at Rs. 32,54,186/-, consistent with the Tribunal’s order as well as the Assessing Officer’s giving-effect order dated 29.07.2019. The addition of Rs. 396,18,86,766/- towards appreciation in the value Printed from counselvise.com 8 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta of shares was upheld on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence to controvert the workings furnished by the Assessing Officer. The estimate of personal expenses at Rs. 5,00,000/- was sustained. The learned CWT(A) further held that no additional liabilities could be allowed since the assessee failed to establish a nexus between the liabilities claimed and the taxable assets. The deletion of the addition relating to the BSE membership card was affirmed in view of the binding decision of the Tribunal. The levy of interest under section 31 was deleted, whereas the levy of interest under section 17B was upheld. 14. Aggrieved by the order of CWT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CWT(A) erred in directing the revision of net wealth as on 31.03.1991 to Rs. 7,85,50,950/- without sufficient evidence to contradict the AO's computation of Rs. 8,26,33,600/- based on seized material. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CWT(A) was justified in revising the income to Rs. 32,54,186/- for A.Y.1992-93 for calculating of net wealth without appreciating the fact that the AO had found the books of accounts of the assessee as unreliable? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CWT(A)-51, Mumbai was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,50,000/- on account of the value of the stock exchange membership card without appreciating that the Assessing Officer’s valuation was based on transactions of similar cards during the F.Y. 1991-92? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CWT(A) erred in law and facts by failing to appreciate that the assessee provided no evidence to challenge the valid original additions, which were upheld in the fresh de-novo assessment as per their directions and by incorrectly determining the default Printed from counselvise.com 9 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta period for charging interest under section 31 of the Act, which should be calculated from the substantive original assessment? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CWT(A) erred in law and facts by finding that the membership card issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE)is merely a personal privilege granted to the member is erroneous, untenable and contrary to the evidence on record, without appreciating that during the de novo se-aside procedings u/s 17 read with Section 24 of the Wealth Tax Act, the AO had duly considered the sale of membership cards by two individuals i.e. Shri Sanjay C. Shah for Rs.72,00,000/- and Shri Jayantilal Sanghvi for Rs.55,005000/- and adopted the average value of sale consideration at Rs.62,50,000/-? 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/or alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 15. The assessee filed cross objection raising following main grounds: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 396,18,86,766/- made by the AO on account of appreciation in value of shares. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in restricting deduction on account of personal expenses to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming deduction allowed by the AO only in respect of income-tax liability of Rs. 142,93,74,864/- and wealth-tax liability of Rs. 11,44,51,373/- The learned CIT(A) ought to allowed deduction in respect of other liabilities incurred in relation to assets belonging to the assessee while determining the net wealth. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the interest charged by the AO u/s 17B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 5. The orders passed by the CIT(A) and the AO are not in the spirit of the directions given by the Hon’ble Tribunal in its order while setting aside the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. 6. The order passed by the CIT(A) is without jurisdiction, bad in law and in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the cross-objections. Printed from counselvise.com 10 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 16. The assessee also filed following additional grounds of cross objection: 1. The CWT(A) has erred in adopting figure of Rs. 7,85,50,950/- as final figure of net wealth as on 31.03.1991 disregarding the facts that theincome tax assessment and wealth tax proceedings for A.Y. 1991-92 are pending at various stage and hence the said figure would undergo a change. 2. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the final figure of wealth as on 31.03.1991 after considering the latest order. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or delete any of the cross-objections raised. 17. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Assessing Officer in its entirety and submitted that the additions sustained by the lower authority were correctly made in accordance with the material available on record. The learned DR further submitted that the Department has already filed appeals before the Hon’ble High Court on the very issues arising in the present appeals before the Tribunal and, therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer ought not to be disturbed. 18. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) reiterated the facts, took us through the various assessment orders and appellate orders. 19. On the Department’s ground No.1 relating to adoption of Opening Wealth at Rs. 7,85,50,950/- instead of Rs. 8,26,33,600/-, the AR submitted that the learned CWT(A) has Printed from counselvise.com 11 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta correctly directed adoption of the opening wealth figure at Rs. 7,85,50,950/-, as this figure is consistent with the Assessing Officer’s own computation while giving effect to the order of the CWT(A) in the earlier third round of litigation. Attention was invited to page 155 of the paper book where the Assessing Officer, in his order dated 13.03.2023, had adopted the figure of Rs. 7,85,50,950/-after reconciling it with the income-tax proceedings for A.Y. 1991-92. Since this figure had remained unchanged in the corresponding income-tax orders, the Assessing Officer in the present impugned order (pages 179–180) could not revert to the earlier figure of Rs. 8.26 crores, which had become redundant in law. The AR submitted that the learned CWT(A) has only restored consistency between the income-tax and wealth-tax computations, which was mandated through earlier appellate directions. 20. On Department’s ground No. 2 relating to adoption of Income Figure at Rs. 32,54,186/- lakhs Instead of Rs. 2,55,07,68,308/-, the learned AR submitted that this issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in the third round of litigation (pages 160, 163 to 167 of the paper book), where the Tribunal conclusively held that the income to be adopted for wealth-tax purposes is Rs. 32,54,186/-. Since this issue was not restored to the Assessing Officer in the Tribunal’s order, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction in the fourth round to modify the figure. It was argued that the Assessing Officer’s Printed from counselvise.com 12 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta action in adopting Rs. 2,55,07,68,308/-, based on an earlier, superseded round of assessment, was impermissible. The AR submitted that the learned CWT(A) has correctly restored the income figure to Rs. 32.54 lakhs in conformity with binding Tribunal directions. 21. On Department’s ground No. 3 and 5relating to Levying Wealth-tax on the Value of Stock Exchange Membership Card, the AR submitted that this issue also stood finally adjudicated by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee during the third round of litigation (pages 160, 173 to 175 of the paper book). The Tribunal had held that the BSE membership card is not an “asset” for purposes of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, and therefore no wealth-tax is leviable on such card. Since the Tribunal had not remanded the issue, the Assessing Officer, in the fourth round, had no jurisdiction to revisit or levy tax on the value of the membership card. The AR therefore supported the learned CWT(A)’s deletion of the addition. 22. On Department’s ground No. 4 relating to Charging of Interest Under Section 31, the AR submitted that this issue too is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal’s order in the third round (pages 160, 177 to 178 of the paper book). The Tribunal had already held that interest under section 31 cannot be charged in the circumstances of the case. Since the Tribunal had not remanded this issue, the Assessing Officer, in the Printed from counselvise.com 13 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta impugned fourth round assessment, lacked jurisdiction to again levy interest under section 31. The learned AR therefore supported the order of the CWT(A) deleting such interest. 23. In respect of assessee’s Cross Objection and its ground No.1 relating to addition of Rs. 396,18,86,766/- on account of appreciation in value of shares, the AR submitted that this addition of Rs. 396,18,86,766/-has been made solely on the basis of figures adopted by the Assessing Officer in the income-tax assessment proceedings (pages 1, 3 to 5 of the paper book). The Assessing Officer had taken the market value of shares as on 31.03.1992 at Rs. 623,56,66,827/-, based on annexures forming part of the income-tax assessment record (pages 8 to 37). The AR pointed out that the Tribunal, in the income-tax proceedings, has already deleted the corresponding additions (pages 378, 446, 424 to 437). Therefore, once the base additions under the Income-tax Act no longer survive, the dependent addition under the Wealth- tax Act cannot stand. 24. The AR further explained that the original computation of appreciation of Rs. 396 crores was based on an opening stock of Rs. 10.65 crores and income during the year of Rs. 405.31 crores, aggregating to Rs. 415.96 crores. However, both these figures have now undergone revision. The opening stock stands reduced to Rs. 7.85 crores (ground no. 1 of revenue appeal), and income during the year stands reduced to Rs. 32.54 lakhs (ground no. 2 Printed from counselvise.com 14 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta of revenue appeal). The aggregate base figure, therefore, stands at Rs. 8.18 crores (Rs. 7.85 crores plus Rs. 0.32 crores). Consequently, the appreciation of Rs. 396 crores, which was computed on an earlier base of Rs. 415.96 crores, must be recomputed proportionately. 25. Without prejudice, and to bring finality to the matter after more than 30 years of litigation, the assessee voluntarily submitted that the proportionate addition may be restricted to Rs. 7.79 crores, computed asRs. 396.18 ÷ 415.96 × 8.18 = Rs. 7.79 crores. 26. It was further argued that the Assessing Officer and the learned CWT(A) erred in disregarding the Chartered Accountant’s valuation certificate submitted under Rule 9A. The certificate merely adopted average quoted market prices available in the public domain and was duly furnished in the assessment proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Kiran Agarwal (291 ITR 225) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63) to support the validity of such valuation. The AR also submitted that, if the Tribunal accepts proportionate recalculation, the shares forming part of the opening stock may be directed to be considered by the Assessing Officer for Rule 9A purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 15 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 27. The AR stated that Ground No. 2 relating to deduction for personal expenditure and Ground No. 3 relating to deduction in respect of liability are not pressed. 28. Relating to Ground No. 4 dealing with interest charged under section 17B, the AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has charged interest of Rs. 44.97 crores (page 489) without furnishing any computation or basis. It was argued that the interest levied is disproportionate when compared with the total tax liability of Rs. 11.44 crores. It was submitted that, if at all interest is to be charged, it should be restricted only up to the date of filing of return of income, namely 29.10.1993 (page 2). 29. Regarding the additional grounds of appeal, the AR submitted that the opening stock figure of Rs. 7.85 crores, which is derived from earlier years' orders, may be suitably modified in the event of any variation arising pursuant to orders passed for A.Y. 1991-92. The assessee sought directions to the Assessing Officer accordingly. 30. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the assessment orders passed in multiple rounds, the impugned order of the learned CWT(A), the written submissions placed on record by the assessee as well as the material referred to by the Departmental Representative, including the earlier orders of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the assessee’s own case. The issues arising for our consideration lie in a narrow compass, Printed from counselvise.com 16 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta though the matter has travelled through several rounds of appellate proceedings over a span of three decades. In order to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective, we deem it appropriate to examine each ground of appeal raised by the Department and each ground of cross-objection filed by the assessee separately. We accordingly proceed to deal with the grounds one by one in the succeeding paragraphs. Revenue’s Appeal – WTA No. 1/Mum/2025 31. Ground 1 - Issue: Whether the CWT(A) was justified in directing that opening net wealth as on 31.03.1991 be taken at Rs. 7,85,50,950/- as against Rs. 8,26,33,600/- adopted by the Assessing Officer. 32. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is an admitted position that, while giving effect to the order of the CWT(A) in the third round of litigation, the Assessing Officer himself has adopted the figure of opening net wealth as on 31.03.1991 at Rs. 7,85,50,950/-. This is evident from the effect- giving order dated 13.03.2023, which has not been shown to have been varied or set aside in any further proceedings. 33. In the impugned fourth-round assessment order, the Assessing Officer has, however, reverted to the higher figure of Rs. 8,26,33,600/- taken from an earlier round of assessment which no longer survives. No fresh material has been brought on record to justify a departure from the figure already accepted in Printed from counselvise.com 17 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta the latest subsisting order. The CWT(A) has merely restored consistency with the Assessing Officer’s own working and with the corresponding income-tax proceedings, and has not granted any fresh or independent relief. Relevant para from the order of the CWT(A) is reproduced here for the sake of clarity – 6. Ground No. 2 pertains to incorrect computation of net wealth by the AO in the order under appeal on account of taking incorrect value of the net wealth as on31.03.1991. Upon perusal of the order of the AO it is observed that the AO has computed the net wealth of the instant year by taking the net wealth as on31.03.1991 at Rs.8,26,33,600/- as taken from order U/s 17 r.w.s. 24 dated30.03.2016 passed by the AO. The appellant in the ground of appeal has submitted that the net wealth as on 31.03.1991 has been taken at Rs.7,85,50,950/- by the AO in his own order giving effect to the order of CWT(A) dated 13.03.2023. Although no submissions have been filed by the appellant in this regard, I have perused the order of the AO dated 13.03.2023 in which effect to the directions of CWT(A)’s order dated11.01.2023 has been given. In the said order the net wealth as on 31.03.1991 has been taken at Rs.7,85,50,950/- by the AO. This therefore is a mistake apparent from record. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that this mistake has been rectified by the AO or not and since this issue forms a part of the ground of appeal, the AO is directed to recompute the net wealth of the appellant by making the computation with net wealth as on 31.03.1991 being 7,85,50,950/- as taken by him in his order dated 13.03.2023. This ground of appeal of the appellant is therefore allowed. 34. In these circumstances, we find no error in the direction of the CWT(A) to adopt Rs. 7,85,50,950/- as the opening figure of net wealth. At the same time, in view of the assessee’s additional grounds in cross-objection, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty, and indeed obliged, to suitably modify this figure if and to the extent it undergoes any change as a consequence of final Printed from counselvise.com 18 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta orders for A.Y. 1991-92. Subject to this clarification, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 35. Ground 2 – Issue: Whether the CWT(A) was justified in directing that income for A.Y. 1992-93 for wealth-tax purposes be taken at Rs. 32,54,186/- instead of Rs. 2,55,07,68,308/-. 36. We note that this issue already stood concluded by the co- ordinate bench in its order dated 13.07.2023 in the third round of litigation. In paragraph 13 of that order, the Co-ordinate Bench has categorically upheld the action of the then CWT(A) in adopting the reduced income of Rs. 32,54,186 for computation of taxable wealth, after analysing the peculiar facts of the case and the manner in which the assessee’s income represented accretion to her wealth. For the sake of clarity, the relevant para from the order of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced below – 13. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We find that while dealing with similar arguments of the assessee, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, held that the case of the assessee is a peculiar one, as no books of accounts were furnished by the assessee at the time of search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, it was found that most of the details of the transactions were maintained by the assessee on a number of computers, which were seized, and upon the analysis of the seized data, it was found that complete share market transactions were not available therein. Therefore, it was held that complete books of account could not be generated from the seized data as well. Thus, the original income tax assessment was also completed on the basis of the material available in the seized computer data, other records, and information gathered from various sources. Further, it was held that the income of the assessee is represented by accounted and unaccounted investment in shares, jewellery, cash, unexplained money, and other unexplained assets, which in any case represents assets liable for levy Printed from counselvise.com 19 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta of wealth tax. The learned AR apart from making general submissions did not bring any material on record to controvert the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we find no merits in the submissions of the learned AR. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 4204/Mum/2017, vide order dated 14/01/2019 for the assessment year 1992-93, granted substantial relief to the assessee. Accordingly, vide order dated 29/07/2019 giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal, the total taxable income of Rs.299,77,95,160 was reduced to Rs.32,54,186, which has been adopted by the learned CIT(A) for computation of taxable wealth in the present case. Further, since from the very first Wealth Tax assessment order dated 28/03/1995, passed by the WTO under section 16(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee is considered for computation of gross wealth, we find no merits in the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal. As a result, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. Accordingly, grounds no.1 and 2 raised in assessee’s appeal, and ground no.1 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 37. That order has attained finality and the issue was not restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, in the fourth-round assessment, therefore had no jurisdiction to travel back to the earlier figure of Rs. 2,55,07,68,308/-, and the CWT(A) was bound in law to follow the binding direction of the Co-ordinate Bench. The impugned order in adopting the income figure of Rs. 32,54,186/- is thus in strict conformity with the earlier Co-ordinate Bench order and with the effect-giving order dated 29.07.2019 in the income-tax proceedings. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. 38. Grounds 3 and 5 – Issue: Whether the CWT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,50,000/- on account of the Printed from counselvise.com 20 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta value of the Bombay Stock Exchange membership card, treating it as a mere personal privilege and not an “asset” u/s 2(e). 39. The question whether the BSE membership card constitutes an “asset” chargeable to wealth-tax is no longer res integra. In paragraph 25 of the earlier order dated 13.07.2023, the co- ordinate bench, after noticing the decision in DCIT v. Ashwin C. Shah (254 ITR (AT) 90), has held that the right of membership of the BSE is only a personal privilege and does not amount to “property” within section 2(e), and has therefore directed deletion of the addition in the case of this very assessee. For the sake of clarity, the relevant para from the order of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced below – 25. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We find that in the assessment order, the WTO adopted the value of card transacted during the financial year 1991-92 in case of different persons as the base, and accordingly, appreciation in the value of the card was determined in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, rejected the submission of the assessee that the date of the sale transactions considered by the WTO is prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee, and subsequent to the search and outbreak of the scam, the value of the stock exchange card would have fallen. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Ashwin C. Shah, 254 ITR(AT) 90 (Mum-Trib.) held that the right of membership of the BSE under the stock exchange card is merely a personal privilege granted to a member by the BSE and it cannot amount to “property” or “interest in property” to constitute an “asset” within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act and thus no tax is payable in respect of such stock exchange card of the BSE. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the addition made on account of the value of the stock exchange membership card is deleted. As a result, ground no.5 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 21 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 40. We have carefully considered the further submissions of the learned Departmental Representative in relation to Ground Nos. 3 and 5, wherein reliance was again placed on the detailed reasoning contained in the decision of the Co-ordinate Benchin Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ashwin C. Shah [2002] 82 ITD 573 (Mumbai). The contentions now urged, including those concerning the nature of stock exchange membership and the applicability of certain statutory provisions, were substantially advanced before us in the earlier rounds of litigation and have already been comprehensively dealt with by the coordinate Bench in its order dated 13.07.2023 as well as in the consequential findings recorded by the CWT(A) in the impugned appellate order. The present reiteration of the very same line of argument does not bring on record any new material, nor does it dislodge the binding effect of the Co-ordinate Bench’s earlier adjudication which has not been disturbed or modified by any higher forum. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the grounds travel beyond the scope of the limited directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in the third round and therefore do not merit any separate adjudication apart from what has already been concluded in the earlier appellate proceedings. 41. We note that this issue was not remanded to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, in the fourth round, was consequently bound by the law so laid down, and the CWT(A) has correctly followed the binding precedent in deleting the impugned Printed from counselvise.com 22 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta addition. The Revenue cannot be permitted to reagitate an issue already decided against it in the assessee’s own case for the same assessment year. Accordingly, Grounds Nos. 3 and 5 of the Revenue’s appeal fail and are dismissed. 42. Ground 4 – Issue: Whether the CWT(A) erred in holding that interest under section 31 is not chargeable from the date of original assessment. 43. We observe that this issue too stood concluded by the earlier order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 13.07.2023. In paragraphs 31 and 32, the Co-ordinate Bench, after reproducing the reasoning of the CWT(A) and taking note of CBDT Circular No. 334 dated 03.04.1982 and the jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd.[2012] 23 taxmann. com 315 (Bom.), has held that where the original assessment is set aside and a fresh assessment is made, interest can be charged only from the date of demand pursuant to the fresh assessment and not from the date of the original assessment order. 44. Relevant para of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced below for the sake of clarity – 32. We find that in CIT v/s Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 23 taxmann. com 315 (Bom.), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that where pursuant to remand, the AO passed a fresh assessment order, on failure of the assessee to pay the demand within the prescribed time the interest under section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be levied from the date of fresh demand. Since, provisions of Printed from counselvise.com 23 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are pari materia to section 31 of the Act, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 45. In the present round CWT(A) has merely given effect to that binding view and directed deletion of interest charged with reference to the original assessment. The argument that the Department has filed appeal before the Hon’ble High Court does not dilute the binding nature of the Co-ordinate Bench’s earlier decision so long as the same has not been stayed or reversed. There is thus no error in the impugned order on this score. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. Assessee’s Cross-Objection – CO No. 238/Mum/2025 46. Ground No. 1 – Issue: Quantum of addition towards appreciation in the value of shares – whether the full amount of Rs. 396.18 crores is sustainable, whether Rule 9A certificate can be adopted, and whether assessee’s without-prejudice offer of Rs. 7.79 crores is acceptable. 47. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The history of the matter shows that the addition towards appreciation in the value of shares has its genesis in the original ex parte computation made by the Assessing Officer in the income-tax assessment, wherein he determined the closing stock as on 31.03.1992 on the basis of huge third-party data and treated the difference vis-à-vis stock as on 08.06.1992 as sales. Printed from counselvise.com 24 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 48. In the third round of litigation, this very Co-ordinate Bench, (in paragraphs 15.37 to 15.40 from the decision in case of late Shri Harshad S Mehta v/s DCIT, in ITA No. 5702/Mum/2017 and ITA no.6028/ Mum./2017and 19 of its order dated 13.07.20230, recorded in great detail that the Revenue had repeatedly failed to produce the underlying primary material and furnish copies of the data and evidences on the basis of which the so-called computerized annexures were prepared. The Co- ordinate Bench held that the additions were largely on the basis of estimates and surmises and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to delete the appreciation to the extent the figures of purchase and sale of shares were not supported by relevant material. 49. In the impugned fourth-round assessment, the Assessing Officer has prepared a working of appreciation and claims to have furnished it to the assessee. The assessee has not produced any cogent rebuttal to the figures appearing in that working, other than general pleas regarding non-supply of underlying third-party documents. In other words, the assessee contests the legal sustainability of the methodology but does not point out specific errors in the computation now made. On this factual canvas, and in view of the Co-ordinate Bench’s earlier observations about the fragile evidentiary foundation of the original computation, we proceed to consider the relief claimed in the cross-objection. Printed from counselvise.com 25 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 50. The assessee has relied upon a valuation certificate of a Chartered Accountant obtained under Rule 9A of the Wealth-tax Rules, which proceeds on the basis of average quoted prices in the market. The certificate was admittedly not part of the original return, has been produced at a very belated stage, and does not reconcile the quoted prices with the assessee’s actual scrip-wise holdings and transactional history. The CWT(A) has rightly noted that, in the absence of complete and reliable primary data, mere reliance on average quotations would not meet the statutory requirement, particularly in a case where this Co-ordinate Bench has repeatedly emphasized that additions must be based on concrete material rather than presumptions. 51. We therefore concur with the CWT(A) that the Rule 9A valuation, in the peculiar facts of this case, cannot be made the sole basis of determining the quantum of appreciation. It may well have the effect of placing the assessee in an unduly advantageous position without a matching level of evidentiary discipline, which would be inappropriate in the background of extensive and complex securities transactions. 52. The assessee has, however, advanced an alternate, without- prejudice plea. It is demonstrated that the figure of Rs. 396.18 crores was originally computed on a base comprising opening stock of Rs. 10.65 crores and income during the year of Rs. 405.31 crores, aggregating to Rs. 415.96 crores. Both these base Printed from counselvise.com 26 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta components have since undergone revision. The opening stock is now finally taken at Rs. 7.85 crores and the income during the year, for wealth-tax purposes, stands at Rs. 32.54 lakhs. The revised aggregate base is thus Rs. 8.18 crores. On a simple proportional basis, the appreciation works out to Rs. 396.18 ÷ 415.96 × 8.18, which comes to approximately Rs. 7.79 crores. The assessee has fairly offered that this amount may be brought to tax in order to draw the curtain on a litigation that has been pending for over three decades. 53. We consider this plea in the totality of circumstances. On the one hand, strict insistence on fresh, scrip-wise verification in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench’s earlier observations is rendered practically unworkable today, given the age of the matter, the systemic changes in the securities market, and the admitted non- traceability of many underlying records. On the other hand, outright deletion of the entire appreciation would ignore the consistent approach of treating accretion in the value of the assessee’s shareholdings as part of her taxable wealth, which has been followed in all earlier rounds and never disturbed in principle. 54. Adoption of the Rule 9A certificate would, as noticed above, place the assessee in a position of advantage not fully justified by the evidentiary record. The proportional method now suggested by the assessee, however, has the merit of being arithmetically Printed from counselvise.com 27 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta objective, anchored to the very computation previously used by the Department, and aligned to the revised base figures which we have independently upheld. It also reflects a fair and reasonable compromise offered by the assessee in recognition of the peculiar history of the case and the turmoil through which the capital markets and the tax administration passed during the relevant period. 55. In these exceptional facts, we are of the view that it would be just and proper to accept the assessee’s without-prejudice offer and restrict the addition on account of appreciation in the value of shares to Rs. 7.79 crores as against Rs. 396,18,86,766 sustained by the CWT(A). This approach neither confers an unwarranted windfall on the assessee nor perpetuates a computation whose foundations have been repeatedly doubted by this Co-ordinate Bench. It brings finality to a long-drawn controversy in a manner consistent with the Co-ordinate Bench’s earlier observations and with the revised wealth-tax base now accepted. 56. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s cross-objection is partly allowed, and the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the net wealth by taking appreciation in the value of shares at Rs. 7.79 crores. Grounds 2 and 3 – Personal expenditure and liabilities Printed from counselvise.com 28 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta 57. These grounds were expressly stated to be not pressed in the written submissions. No adjudication is therefore called for, and Grounds 2 and 3 of the cross-objection are dismissed as not pressed. Ground 4 – Issue: Quantum and period of interest chargeable u/s 17B. 58. The co-ordinate bench in its order dated 13.07.2023 has already held that interest under section 17B is compensatory in nature and is to be charged in accordance with the statutory formula, that is, from the due date of filing the return till the date of filing the return or the date of assessment, whichever is earlier. 59. In the impugned order, the CWT(A) has upheld the levy of interest in principle, holding it to be mandatory, but the assessee has pointed out that the quantum of interest charged by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 44.97 crores appears disproportionately high compared to the total tax liability of Rs. 11.44 crores, and that no working has been furnished. In these circumstances, while we see no reason to interfere with the charge of interest in principle, we consider it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest strictly in accordance with section 17B, ensuring that the period does not extend beyond the date of filing of the return, i.e. 29.10.1993, and that full credit is given for tax paid, including any amount realised through the Printed from counselvise.com 29 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta Custodian. Subject to this direction, Ground No. 4 of the cross- objection is treated as partly allowed. Additional Grounds 1 and 2 60. In the additional grounds, the assessee has prayed that in case the figure of opening stock or opening wealth of Rs. 7.85 crores undergoes any modification as a result of final orders for A.Y. 1991-92, the Assessing Officer may be directed to suitably align the present year’s computation. The prayer is procedural and consistent with the scheme of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. The additional grounds are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 61. In the combined result, Revenue’s appeal in WTA No. 1/Mum/2025 is dismissed and Assessee’s cross-objection in CO No. 238/Mum/2025 is partly allowed in the manner indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 12/12/2025 Dhananjay, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com 30 WTA No. 01/Mum/2025 & CO-238/Mum/2025 Smt. Jyoti Harshad Mehta आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "