9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee were not the owners of the factory building and as such the building appeared in the balance-sheet of M/s New Light Tannery and standing in the name of Tannery in municipal records, as such the partners were not entitled for the claim under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act. The assessee claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) in respect of the tannery building. The ITO observed that the immovable property is the asset of the firm and is not owned by the assessee. As such he negatived the claim of the assessee under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act and computed the wealth as under: Asst. yr.: 1977-78, Shri Suheb Ahsan Capital in M/s New Light Tannery . Rs. 60,174 Accretion in Factory building . Rs. 65,896 Accretion in Machinery/Boilder . Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pat). The building also includes residential portion of five partners and provisions are directly applicable. The AAC on consideration of facts observed as under: "I have considered the facts and I agree with the appellant that in view of the judgment mentioned above he is entitled for deduction under s. 5(1)(iv) on the property held by the firm for Tannery and residential purposes. The WTO is directed to allow the relief as per law and the appeal is allowed." Feeling aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the Department has come up in second appeals before us. 3. The Departmental Representative reiterated the same argument which was advanced before the authorities below to the effect that the assessees were not the owners of the building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir identity. All the same, the assets as a whole belong to the partners. In computing the net wealth of the firm by reference to r. 2, of WT Rules if a partner qualifies for any exemption provided under the Act, such exemption must be taken into consideration in determining the net wealth of the firm. It was further contended that what a firm owns a house and a partner resides in a portion of the house, the exemption provided by s. 5(1)(iv) should be taken into consideration in determining the net wealth of the firm. In support of this contention, the authorised representative placed reliance in the case of CWT vs. Nandlal Jalan (1980) 14 CTR (Pat) 181 : (1980) 122 ITR 781 (Pat) and CIT vs. Brij Mohan Das (1979) 9 CTR (All) 50 : (1979) 118 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
