ORDER
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 to this Court :
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 to this Court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee-HUF was entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of its share in the value of immovable property belonging to the partnership firm M/s. Agarwal Enterprises in which the assessee was a partner ?
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :
The dispute relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee who is a partner in the firm, namely, Agarwal Enterprises claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of the cinema building owned by the firm. The said claim was not accepted by the assessing authority. But the Tribunal has allowed the same.
3. Heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the revenue. He submitted that this Court in the case of same assessee for the earlier assessment year 1982-83 has answered the similar question in favour of the department and against the assessee on the basis that exemption on the cinema building cannot be granted as it is not house within the meaning of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. He also seeks support of the judgment of this Court reported in CIT v. Jai Kishan Gupta (2003) 264 ITR 482 (All), wherein cinema building has been held to be not a house.
3. Heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the revenue. He submitted that this Court in the case of same assessee for the earlier assessment year 1982-83 has answered the similar question in favour of the department and against the assessee on the basis that exemption on the cinema building cannot be granted as it is not house within the meaning of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. He also seeks support of the judgment of this Court reported in CIT v. Jai Kishan Gupta (2003) 264 ITR 482 (All), wherein cinema building has been held to be not a house.
4. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of this court, we answer the question referred to us in negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of this court, we answer the question referred to us in negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.