August 20, 1969) and the same is bil!lding on us. A similar view was taken by another Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Mrs. Dorothy Martin (l.968) · 69 I.T.R. 586 (Cal.). Jin, that case under the will of the assessee's father the assessee was entitled to receive for her life the annual interest accruing upon her share in the residuary trust fund. The Wealth-tax Officer included the entire value of the said share in the assessable wealth of the assessee and subjected the same to tax under section 16 (3) of the Wealth-tax, 1957. That order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Tribunal in appeal excluded the same in the computa,tion of the net wealth of the assessee. On a reference made to the High Court, it was held that, on a construction of the various clauses in the will, the assessee was entitled to an aliquot share iin, the general income of the residuary trust fund and not a fixed sum payable per:iodically as "annuity" and, therefore, the value of her share was an asset to be included in computing his net wealth. These decisioos in our view correcily lay down the legal position. In this view, it is not necessary to consider wheth,er the income receilvable by the assessee under those deeds, either wholly or in part, is capable of being commuted into a lump sum grant.
