Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Satyabhama Ganeriwalla - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ajit k. sengupta, j.1. this is a reference under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. shortly stated, the facts are that, in pursuance of an agreement, the assessee purchased a flat at calcutta from messrs. chitralekha housing corporation and, on payment of a total consideration of rs. 99,294, she obtained possession of the said flat in february, 1975. no deed of conveyance was drawn up. the wealth-tax officer, therefore, recorded a finding that the assessee did not acquire any title to the said flat. he, therefore, declined to allow exemption under clause (iv) of section 5(1) of the act.3. on appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner of wealth-tax allowed the exemption.4. the department took up the matter in appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal dismissed the appeal and endorsed the order of the appellate assistant commissioner of wealth-tax.5. on the aforesaid facts, the following question has been referred to this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the said house belonged to the assessee and thereby allowing exemption under clause (iv) of section 5(1), of the wealth-tax act, 1957 ?'6. none appeared for the assessee.7. mr. chakraborty has very fairly drawn our attention to the decision of this court in the case of madgul udyog v. cit : [1990]184itr484(cal) .8. in our view, if the property does not belong to the assessee, the wealth-tax officer could not have included the value of such property in the net wealth of the assessee. the wealth lax officer can only include such property or asset as belongs to the assessee. if the flat in question belongs to the assessee as an asset for the purpose of assessment, in that event, the exemption under section 5(l)(iv) cannot be denied to the assessee as admissible to such an asset. the flat which has been allotted to the assessee by the promoter of the multi-storeyed building against payment and of which the assessee had the full user and possession and from which the assessee cannot be evicted by the promoter must be held to be belonging to the assessee.9. in our view, the principles laid down in the case of madgul udyog : [1990]184itr484(cal) will equally apply to the facts of this case.10. for the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.11. there will be no order as to costs.shyamal kumar sen, j.12. i agree.