Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs M. Appuswamy

K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.—At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the opinion of this

court, u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"", for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 :

''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in computing the assessee''s

interest in the firm of Sri Santhanalakshmi Mills, the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act should be granted to the firm in respect of a

godown owned by it and the assessee''s share should be arrived at on the basis of the net wealth of the firm so arrived at ?

The assessee is assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. He is a partner in Sree Santhanalakshmi

Mills, Pollachi. In valuing his interest in the firm, he claimed exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, in respect of a godown owned by the

firm. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the assessee''s claim on the ground that the godown could not be treated as a ""house"" within the meaning of

section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. He accordingly, added back a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the net wealth of the assessee in each year.

On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that as per the Board''s circular, the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Act should be allowed

even in respect of buildings used for commercial purposes and hence the assessee''s claim should be allowed.

The Department took the matter to the Tribunal. Before it was contended that since the assessee''s share in the firm is only a movable property,

there is no question of granting exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The Tribunal held that ""net wealth"" of the firm should be computed after allowing

exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the Departmental appeal was dismissed.

Before us, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that a godown cannot be a ""house"" as contemplated u/s 5(1)

(iv) of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal was not correct in allowing exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Learned counsel

appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Tribunal.

We have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that in valuing the assessee''s interest in the firm, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 5(1)

(iv) of the Act, in respect of a godown owned by the firm. The point for consideration is, whether a godown can be considered as a ""house"" as

contemplated within the meaning of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular F. No. 317/8/73-WT, dated July 9, 1975, which runs as under :

Instruction No. 568.

XIX-VII/29 - Exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act - Meaning of the word ''house''. -

Under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee is exempt from

wealth-tax up to a limit of Rs. one lakh. Under this clause as it stood prior to the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, with effect

from April 1, 1972, the exemption was available only if the house or part of the house was exclusively used by the assessee for residential

purposes. The expression exclusively used by the assessee for residential purposes was dropped by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, with effect

from April 1, 1972. A question has, therefore, arisen as to the meaning of the term ''house'' occurring in section 5(1)(iv) after April 1, 1972. The

Board are advised that the term ''house'' in section 5(1)(iv) would refer not only to building used for residential purposes, but for other purposes as

well and the exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) would be available even if the buildings are let out for commercial purposes. This may be brought to the notice

of all the officers working in your charge.

According to the abovesaid circular, the building used for purposes other than residential would also qualify for exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the

Act. According to the Board''s circular, the term ""house"" in section 5(1)(iv) of the Act would refer Act only to building used for residential

purposes, but for other purposes as well. A godown is also a building. Therefore, exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Act would be available even with

regard to the godown.

In The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Pimpri Waghere, ; while considering the provisions of section 89

of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, the Supreme Court held that the word ""house"" is a structure of a permanent character. It is

structurally severed from other tenements. It is not necessary that a house if adapted for residential purposes should be actually dwelt in. The idea

of the varieties of meanings can be had from the subject-matter of the statute. It was further held that the word ""house"" extends to a building, which

is used for business and should not be restricted to a mere dwelling house. It is not limited to a structure designed for human habitation, and may

mean a building or shed intended or used as a habitation or shelter for animals of any kind, a building in the ordinary sense or any building, edifice,

or structure enclosed with walls and covered, regardless of the fact of human habitation. Under particular circumstances, the term has been held

equivalent to and interchangeable or synonymous with ""building"", ""dwelling"" and ""dwelling house"" and sometimes premises. Our attention was

drawn to a decision rendered in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , wherein this court held that a cinema theatre

cannot be called a ""house"". In that decision, the Board''s Circular, as stated above, was not considered by this court. In view of the foregoing

reasons, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in granting exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with

regard to the godown owned by the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.

No costs.