Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Pramod Kumar Agarwal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: dhananjal awasthl for the applicant. head note: income tax wealth tax exemption under section 5(1)(iv)--share of assessee in cinema hallcinema hall owned by firmheld: as cinema hall cannot be said to be a house, for which exemption under section 5(1)(iv) was available, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under the said section in respect of his share in the value of immovable property, i.e., cinema hall, which belonged to the firm of which the assessee was a partner. wealth tax act, 1957 s.5(1)(iv) in the allababad high court of r.k agrawal & dilip gupta, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad - the revenue's appeal before the tribunal has failed.orderthe income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the wealth tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for opinion of this court:'whether the itat is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the w.t. act in respect of his share in the value of immovable property which belonged to the firm of which the assessee is a partner?'2. briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present case, are as follows. the reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82. the income tax appellate tribunal has made a reference in respect of five persons similarly situated. all the five persons are partners in different firms, which own a cinema hall. they claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act in respect of their share in the cinema hall. the exemption was disallowed by the wealth-tax officer. however, the commissioner (appeals) had allowed the exemption under the aforesaid provisions. the revenue's appeal before the tribunal has failed.in favour of revenue.3. we have heard sri dhananjai awasthi, learned standing counsel for the revenue. no body has appeared for the assessee. the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act is available to an assessee under the act in respect of one house or a part of a house belonging to him. the cinema building cannot be said to be a house as a house is commonly known as a dwelling place in which people reside. this court in the case of cit v. jai kishan gupta : [2003]264itr482(all) has held that exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the act is not available in respect of a cinema building.4. respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question ref erred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for opinion of this Court:

'Whether the ITAT is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act in respect of his share in the value of immovable property which belonged to the firm of which the assessee is a partner?'

2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present case, are as follows. The reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has made a reference in respect of five persons similarly situated. All the five persons are partners in different firms, which own a Cinema Hall. They claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of their share in the Cinema Hall. The exemption was disallowed by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the exemption under the aforesaid provisions. The revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed.

In favour of revenue.

3. We have heard Sri Dhananjai Awasthi, learned Standing counsel for the revenue. No body has appeared for the assessee. The exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act is available to an assessee under the Act in respect of one house or a part of a house belonging to him. The Cinema building cannot be said to be a house as a house is commonly known as a dwelling place in which people reside. This court in the case of CIT v. Jai Kishan Gupta : [2003]264ITR482(All) has held that exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act is not available in respect of a Cinema building.

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question ref erred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.