MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO.135 OF 1985 C.R. Dakle (HUF) ..Applicant Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Pune..Respondent WITH WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO.41 OF 1988 C.R. Dakle (HUF) ..Applicant Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, ..Respondent WITH WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO.55 OF 1986 C.R. Dakle (HUF) ..Applicant Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, .Respondent Mr. S.N. Inamdar, for the Applicants Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Respondents CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 13th February, 2009 DATED: 13th February, 2009 DATED: 13th February, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The common question in all these References read as under:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessees claim to receive the sugarcane price was a valuable right whose value was includible in the assessee family’s net wealth on the valuation dates relevant for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76?" 2. All these appeals arise in respect of the period from December, 1973 to December, 1979. 3. A few facts may be set out. The assessee is a HUF. The assessee owned agricultural lands on which sugarcane was grown which had been supplied to Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana of which Co-operative Society the assessee was a member. For several crushing season the assessee had supplied sugarcane to the said society and had been paid price for the entire sugarcane supplied at the members’ rate. The controversy arose for the crushing seasons 1968-69 and 1969-70. The society passed a resolution dated 6th August, 1969 that payment for sugarcane at members’ rate would only be in respect of sugarcane grown on 35 Acres of land and payment to the sugarcane grown on excess land will be made at non-member rates. The assessee’s contention was that the assessee should be paid at the members’ rate in respect of the entire sugarcane supplied and no distinction could be made in respect of the sugarcane grown on 35 Acres of land and the sugarcane grown on the other land. . As there arose a dispute the assessee raised a dispute before the O.S.D., Co-operative Department, Ahmednagar, who passed an award in favour of the assessee dated 13th February, 1973 . The factory aggrieved preferred an appeal. That appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 12th December, 1975. The factory thereafter preferred a Petition to this Court where stay was granted. Ultimately the matter was compromised between the parties by filing consent terms which were allowed on 22nd April, 1980. The amount thus become ascertained on 22nd April, 1980. 4. Based on these facts it is the submissions of the learned Counsel for assessee that what was paid to it are by way of damages for breach of contract. In so far as damages are concerned, it is submitted that they are payable only when they are ascertained. They would become ascertained on the date when the compromise terms were accepted on 22nd April, 1980. In the light of that for the relevant assessment year this amount could not have been included for the period of computing the net wealth of the assessee. 5. In our opinion the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee must be accepted. In so far as the damages are concerned they become due and payable on the date the Court finally decrees or awards the same, in other words when they are ascertained. This view also finds support in the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Akber A. Dehgamwalla vs. Commissioner of Wealth Akber A. Dehgamwalla vs. Commissioner of Wealth Akber A. Dehgamwalla vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1992) 198 ITR 17. Tax, (1992) 198 ITR 17. Tax, (1992) 198 ITR 17. 6. For the aforesaid reasons the Reference will have to be answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)