9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1957. ( ii )In treating that the assessee s flat at Jaipur exempt under Wealth-tax Act despite the fact that the assessee had failed to prove that the flat was occupied for purposes of business carried on by him. ( iii )In treating that the assessee s flat and shop at Pearl Heights, Khar (W), Mumbai as exempt under Wealth-tax Act despite the fact that the assessee had failed to prove that the flats and shops were occupied for business carried on by him." 4. Although same grounds of appeal have been raised in all the six years i.e., assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 by the revenue, the Ground No. 1 arises in all the years, but the issue in Ground No. 2 arises in assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02 and issue in Ground No. 3 arises in 2000-01 and 2001-02 only. Accordingly the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue in assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 is dismissed as not arising from the appeal. Similarly the issue in Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue in assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 is dismissed as it does not arise from the appeal. 5. In the first ground, the issue is regarding the exemption of two separate flats occupied by the assessee. The Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential or commercial purposes which forms part of stock-in-trade. (3)any house which the assessee may occupy for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him. (4)any residential property that has been let-out for a minimum period of three hundred days in the previous year; (5)any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes. The above-said assets are outside the purview of Wealth-tax Act, though being a building of land appurtenant thereto. The section was substituted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999 and prior to its substitution under sub-clause (I) only three exemptions being Item Nos. (1), (2) and (3) were provided under section 2( ea )( i ) of the Wealth-tax Act. 9. Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act provides exemptions in respect of certain assets wherein it has been provided that wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the assets enumerated in section 5. Such assets as referred to in section 5 are not to be included in the net wealth of the assessee while computing his wealth under the provisions of Wealth-tax Act. The said provisions of section 5 are in addition to section 2( ea ) which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 5( vi ) of the Wealth-tax Act, exemption is provided in respect of one house or part of house. The question for determination is whether a house can be said to include only a single dwelling unit. Per Halsbury, C. Grant v. Langston , [1900] AC 390, it was held "A hundred years ago there was not much difficulty in saying what was a house , but builders and architects have so altered the construction of houses, and the habits of people have so altered in relation to them, that house has acquired an artificial meaning and the word is no longer the expression of a simple idea. To ascertain its meaning one must understand the subject-matter with respect to which it is used in order to arrive at the sense in which it is employed in a statute". In Lewin v. End [1906] App. Cas. 299, it has been held that "House imputes a place of residence, but is a wider term than dwelling house". 13. Their Lordships of Allahabad High Court in Shiv Narain Chaudhari s case ( supra ) considered the case of a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of 4 adult members, each occupying one residential unit in the building bearing door Nos. 92-92A. The residential units were connected by comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided there is a unity of structure. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the flats being adjacent to each other are being used by the assessee as a common residence for himself and his joint family members, there is no merit in considering each flat as a separate unit and denying exemption under section 5( vi ) of the Wealth-tax Act. The exemption under section 5( vi ) of the Act is allowable to a house, which is a unity of structure and may consist of more than one dwelling units. We find support from CWT v. S.D. Jadeja [2006] 283 ITR 45 1 , wherein their Lordships of Gujarat High Court have held as under : " Held, that once the Tribunal had found on the facts, and there was no challenge to the finding, that the two buildings were contiguous, existed in one compound and within common boundaries, in the absence of any finding that either of the buildings was used for non-residential purposes, i.e., commercial purposes, no infirmity could be found in the order of the Tribunal, when it held that both the buildings constituted a house belonging to the assessee exclusively used by him for residential purposes within the meaning of section 7(4). The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
