S.C. Sen, J.
1. It has been stated by the advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee that the assessee, Shri Saroj Kumar Banerjee, has died leaving his son, Manoj Kumar Banerjee, as his legal heir and representative. The name of the son be recorded.
2. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), is as under :
'Whether, on the facets and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the house at Hindusthan Road, Calcutta, belonging to his wife ?'
3. The assessments relate to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Wealth-tax Officer had included the sum of Rs. 1,67,750, as the value of the house property at Hindusthan Road, Calcutta, standing in the name of the assessee's wife. For the assessment year 1974-75, Rs. 1,70,000 was added as the value of the house property. This addition was done by applying the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act which lays down as hereunder :
'4. Net wealth to include certain assets.--(1) In computing the net wealth of an individual, there shall be included, as belonging to that individual-
(a) the value of assets which on the valuation date are held-
(i) by the spouse of such individual to whom such assets have been transferred by the individual, directly or indirectly, otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart, or'
4. The Wealth-tax Officer allowed in each of those assessments deduction of Rs. 1 lakh in respect of a house or a part of a house belonging to the assessee in terms of Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act.
5. On August 16, 1975, the Commissioner, by his consolidated order passed under Section 25(2) of the Act, withdrew the deduction of Rs. 1 lakh allowed under Section 5(1)(iv) on the ground that the said provision had no application in the present case as the house property in question actually belonged to the wife of the assessee and not to the assessee himself. The Commissioner proceeded on the basis that where an asset belonged to the wife or a minor child of an assessee under Section 4(1)(a), the deduction contemplated under Section 5(1)(iv) could not be allowed in respect of the asset so included as it did not actually belong to the assessee.
6. The Tribunal, on appeal, held that the deduction of Rs. 1 lakh allowed by the Income-tax Officer should not have been withdrawn by the Commissioner. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Naganathan v. CWT : [1975]101ITR287(Mad) , where it was held that the benefit of Section 5(1)(iv) would be available also where the property is transferred to the wife by reason of Section 4(1)(a).
7. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct. The charge of tax under the Wealth-tax Act is on the net wealth of every individual or the Hindu undivided family at the rate specified in Schedule I of the Act.
8. In computing the net wealth of an individual, the entire assets belonging to an assessee have to be included in his net wealth. Strictly speaking, the house property assets did not belong to him. By the extended definition of Section 4, these assets have to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Now, having included the assets in the net wealth of the assessee, the exemptions in respect of these assets which were provided under Section 5 cannot be denied.
9. Our view on the question is in consonance with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CWT v. B.T. Agrawal , the Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. Rai (C.) : [1979]119ITR553(Bom) and also the Karnataka High Court in the case of CWT v. Eapen (K.M.) : [1978]114ITR415(KAR) . The Madras High Court has also taken the same view in the case of S. Naganathan : [1975]101ITR287(Mad) .
10. In view of the aforesaid, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
Baboo Lall Jain, J.
12. I agree.