9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 as against Rs. 84,677 returned by him, and allowed exemption on the full value under s. 5(1)(iv) in the original assessments. On account of an audi objection, the WTO started proceedings under s. 35 meaning to set right few mistakes one of them being about the exemption allowed in respect of Bhaveshnagar property. The WTO heard the party and passed orders which had the effect of reducing the extent of exemption. In these appeals the point is restricted to the extent of exemption allowable under s. 5(1)(iv) as that was the only question carried by the assessee in the appeal. 3. Bhaveshnagar property consists of several independent residential flats. It had been suggested in the audit objection that in view of the decision of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the property cannot be exempt under s. 5(1)(iv) since it is available only to a house or a part of a house and inasmuch as the building in question consists of several tenements each being a separate residential unit. The argument proceeded on the premise that each residential promises are a house and that exemption is not allowable for the entire block comprising of several dwellings. Sri Warde replied that, in the first place, the question raised by the Revenue regarding exemption is on the face of it a ticklish point of law and the WTO did not have jurisdiction to decide such an issue while exercising powers under s. 35. On merits, he not only distinguished AIR 1976 (SC) 2463 on facts, but placed strong reliance upon the Allahabad High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a separately let and separately occupied. One has no connection with those above or below, except in so far as it may derive support from those below instead of from the ground as in the case of ordinary houses". Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were construing the meaning of the word "house" used in Bombay Village Panchayat Act and the question was whether 'house' included a factory building also. 9. In Grant vs. Langston (1990) AC 390, Halsbury C. States: "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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cola Investments Ltd. (1965) 3 All ER 850, is pertinent in this connection. It reads: "...the same word occurring in different enactments has to be given a meaning in relation to the context, the object and the purpose of that enactment, we shall advert to a few decisions in which the question whether a building in which there are several dwelling units, can be regarded as one house, was considered". 12. In Benabo vs. Wood Green Corporation (1946) KB 38, it was held that a house let separately to two or more tenants was not by reason of that letting, more than one house. It was a case where the construction of the word 'house' was being ascertained for the purposes of rating under the Housing Act, 1936. 13. In Okereke vs. Borouugh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
