9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 92 and 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, in Allahabad. A part of that building was constructed in the year 1960 and was assigned Municipal door No. 92. That building was extended in the year 1963 and such extended portion was assigned door No. 92-A. Two of the residential units are situate in the portion of the building bearing door No. 92 and the remaining two residential units, in the portion bearing door No. 92-A. The assessee-family also owned another building bearing Municipal door No. 17/33, in another locality, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad. A part of that building was let out and a part of it was in the occupation of the assessee's family. In the course of assessment for wealth-tax for the year 1966-67, the assessee-family claimed exemption under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act."), in respect of the value of the building bearing Municipal door Nos. 92 and 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, Allahabad, and the value of the building bearing Municipal door No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad. The Wealthtax Officer exempted only the portion of the house bearing door No. 92, but declined to exempt the other portion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee--......... (iv) one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purposes." The claim of the assessee for exempting both the buildings situate in Darbhanga Castle and the building situate in Mahatma Gandhi Marg, is clearly unsustainable. Even if both these buildings are used by the assessee-family for residential purposes, only one house can be exempted under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. These two buildings, namely, the one bearing Nos. 92 and 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, and the other bearing No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, are separate buildings situate in two different localities, and by no stretch of imagination they can be regarded as one house even if the assessee-family was using both those buildings exclusively for residential purpose. Moreover, a part of the building bearing door No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, has been held by the Wealth-tax Officer to have been let out. The more important question is whether the two portions of the building bearing door No. 92 and door No. 92-A could be regarded as forming one h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are connected by a common passage and the building has unity of structure. That the portion of the building bearing door No. 92 was built in 1960 while the other portion bearing door No. 92-A was built in the year 1963, would not have any relevance to determine whether both those portions together constitute a house. A house may be built in stages ; a portion of it may be built in one year and another portion of it may be built after an interval of several years. That one portion of the building bears one door number, while the other portion bears another door number and that these two portions are assessed separately by the municipality, are no doubt relevant circumstances in considering whether these two portions constitute one house or two different houses, but these circumstances are not decisive. The Tribunal has, in our opinion, attached excessive importance to these two circumstances. As these two portions of the building are contiguous and situate in the same compound and within common boundaries and have unity of structure there is no reason why they should not together be regarded as constituting one house. Bearing in mind the caution uttered by Lawrence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the work and called upon the landlord to pay the cost of such work under the Housing Act, 1936. The landlord pleaded that the notice and the demand which followed it were not valid since separate notices and separate demands in respect of each tenement was required and that the landlord was entitled to know the cost of effecting the repairs for each of the tenements. It was held in that case that for the purpose of the Housing Act, 1936, the fact that the house consisted of two separate dwellings, did not entitle the landlord to separate notices in respect of each dwelling and that as the Act was concerned with " houses " and not " dwellings " only one notice was necessary in respect of the entire house and separate notices were not necessary in respect of each dwelling. Humphreys J. observed thus at page 164 : " In fact, this was a house which was used by two separate families. The landlord, the person having control, had let certain rooms in the house to one person and certain other rooms to another person. Does that make the house two houses ? In my opinion, emphatically not. It remained one house. I think that is the answer, and a complete answer, to this point. " In Ok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
