JUDGMENT
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (herein-after referred to as "the Act"), for opinion to this court :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the value of route permit from the assessable wealth of the assessee observing that the same did not fall within the definition of asset as defined in Section 2(e)(v) ?"
2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :
The respondent-assessees who are two in number while filing their return of wealth for the assessment year 1984-85 has shown only the value of their buses and not of the route permits. The Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the route permits also while determining the taxable wealth which order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. However, in further appeal the Tribunal had held that under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, duration of the route permit is not to be less than three years and not more than five years. The Tribunal has further found that in view of the provisions of Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act the permit is non-transferable except with the permission of the transport authority and it is liable to be cancelled under Section 60 of the aforesaid Act. The Tribunal had held that in view of the provisions of Section 2(c)(v) of the Act which has been inserted with effect from April 1, 1969, any interest in property where the interest is available to the assessee for a period not exceeding six years from the date the interest vests in the assessee is not included in the definition of the asset. The Tribunal accordingly deleted the additions made in the net wealth on account of the route permits. While holding so the Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the apex court in the case of CWT v. Smt. R.A. Muthukrishna Ammal .
4. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
5. We find that Section 2(e)(v) of the Act as it stood after the amendment by the Finance Act,1969, excluded any interest in property where the interest is available to an assessee for a period not exceeding six years from the date the interest vests in the assessee from the term "assets" under the Act. The apex court in the case of F. S. Ghandhi v. CWT [ has held that the properties in respect of which leases had expired in 1958 and 1963, were not assets within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2)(iii) of the Act, their value Was not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The apex court has followed its earlier decision in the case of CWT v. Smt. R.A. Muthukrishna Ammal . As in the present case the Tribunal has found that the minimum period for which a route permit can be granted is three years and maximum period is five years under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it cannot be said that the respondent-assessee had interest of six years or more in the route permit. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly deleted the addition made on this account.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.