Belonging to Wealth Tax 1957, S. 2(m) In the instant appeal, however, we are concerned with the expression ‘belonging to’ and not with the expression ‘owner’. This question had come up before this Court before a Bench of five learned Judges in CWT v. Bishwanath Chatterjee, (1976) 103 ITR 536 : (1976) 3 SCC 385 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 301. At page 539 of the report , this Court referred to the definition of the expression ‘belong’ in the Oxford English Dictionary: “To be the property or rightful possession of”. So it is the property of a person, or that which is in his possession as of right, which is liable to wealth tax. In other words, the liability to wealth tax arises because of the belonging of the asset, and not otherwise. Mere possession, or joint possession unaccompanied by the right to be in possession, or ownership of property would therefore not bring the property within the definition of “net wealth’ for it would not then be an asset “belonging” to the assessee. The first limb of the definition indicated in the Oxford Dictionary may not be applicable to these properties in the instant appeal because these lands were not legally the properties of the vendees and the assessee was the lawful owner of these properties. The vendees were, however, in rightful possession of the properties as against the vendor in view of the provisions of S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The scheme of the Act has to be borne in mind. It has also to be borne in mind that unlike the provisions of Income Tax Act, S. 2(m) of the Act uses the expression ‘belonging to’ and as such indicates something over which a person has dominion and lawful dominion should be the person assessable to wealth tax for this purpose. (Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. C.W.T., 1986 Supp SCC 698 (708)