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.
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) 264 ITR 482 has held that exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act is not available in respect of a Cinema building.
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) 264 ITR 482 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.
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.