9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. Interpretation of "exclusively used for residential purposes" under section 5(1)(iv). 3. Applicability of circulars issued under section 13 of the Wealth-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: The assessees, three brothers, claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for their ownership and use of a house property. Initially, the exemption was granted but later withdrawn by the Revenue, leading to appeals. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemption, but the Tribunal, following a Special Bench decision, also supported the exemption, stating that the test of exclusiveness of the user of the house must be determined with reference to whether the assessees' user of the house was as of right. 2. Interpretation of "exclusively used for residential purposes" under section 5(1)(iv): The Revenue argued that the assessees did not fulfill the requirements of section 5(1)(iv) as it was not established that the parts of the house were exclusively used by them for residential purposes. The Tribunal's reasoning that ownership and the right to reside sufficed for exemption was challenged. The court emphasized that both ownership and exclusive residential use of the property are required for exemption. The court noted that the term "exclusively used" should be interpreted to mean personal use for residence, which includes living with family members but not commercial or non-residential use. The court found that the assessees did not demonstrate exclusive residential use of the property as required by the Act. 3. Applicability of circulars issued under section 13 of the Wealth-tax Act: The assessees relied on a circular from the Board stating that exemption should be allowed to co-owners residing jointly, provided the property is used for residential purposes. However, the court held that circulars issued under section 13 are administrative instructions and not binding on the Tribunal or the court in judicial matters. The court referred to several decisions, including A. L. A. Firm v. CIT and Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT, which established that circulars cannot preempt judicial interpretation of statutory provisions. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessees did not satisfy the twin requirements of ownership and exclusive residential use of the property under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The circular relied upon by the assessees could not override the judicial interpretation of the statutory provisions. Therefore, the court answered the common question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, and awarded costs to the Revenue.
|
