finally by the Court and till the enhanc-ed compensation became payable by reason of final adjudication of the Court no property could be said to have come into existence and certainly it was not in existence at the date of death. It was point·d out that against the decrees passed by the City Civil Court appeals had been preferred by the Government .. to the High Court and even the High Court's decision might be carried in further appeal to this Court and, therefore, till the claim was finally accepted by the highst Court no property (enhanced compensation) could be said to have come into existence. Counsel urged that it would~ run counter to aU principles of direct taxation to regard the amou'nt ·~ decreed subsequ.;ntly by the final Court as property having come into existence retrospectively on the re},;vant date (being date of death under Estate Duty Act and valuation date unckr the Wealth Tax Act) though, in fact, it did not exist on that date, a'nd in this behalf reliance was placed upon the dt;::cision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & .Sons. v. Commissioner of Income-tax('), two decisions of the Calcutta High Court, namely, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengai (II) v. U. C. Mahatab(") and Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-I! vi. Hindustan Housing and Land Deve- lopment Trust Ltd.(8 ) two decisions of the Gujarat High Court, namely, Topandas Kundanmal v. Commissioner of Income-tax(4 ) and Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. New Jelumgir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. (r,) and one decision of the Kerala High Court in M. Jairam v. Commissioner of Income~ Tax, Kerala(6 ). Secondly, counsel contended E- that assuming that the. right to receive compensation survived and it was that right which was being prosecuted by the heirs of Rashid in Civil Court, the impugned notice had not been issued on the ground that such right to compensation had ben undervalued on the earlier occasion and required to be properly valued as at the date of the death but the basis on which it was issued was clearly unsustainablein law inasmuch as the respondent had issued it on the assumption that there had been escapement of assessment to duty because the lahds in the original assessment had been undervalued in view of the glaring enhanod compensation awarded by the Civi1 Court,and the High Court's decision upholding the issuance of such notice on the wrong basis was G· liable to be set aside. Thin!ly, counsel contended that seeking Refe.re·nces under the Land Acquisition Act and th~ir pendency in Civil
