COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. R SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two references we are concerned with the interpretation and application of the provisions relating to additional wealth tax on urban immoveable properties which were in force between the years 1971-72 and 1976-77.

(2.) One late M. Kasturi Ranga Setty was a partner of a firm M/s. Krishna Flour Mills, Bangalore, representing his Hindu Undivided Family. The said firm owned a fac:tory, land and buildings which had been leased out to a company. Assessee's share of interest in the immoveable properties of the firm in which the assessee was a partner was brought to additional wealth tax. The assessee contested the levy of additional wealth tax on these properties on the ground that these properties were used for the purpose of the business of the firm of which he was a partner and was therefore not liable. The Revenue took the stand that since the firm was using the said assets for its business and not used by the assessee it was not entitled for exclusion from the operation of clause (2) of Schedule I to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said provisions of law which are ap:plicable to the matter reads :

(3.) On appeal to the Appellate Commissioner the assessee's contention was upheld on the ground that the business carried on by the firm is as well the business carried on by the assessee as a partner of the firm. On further appeal the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orderx of the Tribunal, the Revenue sought for references and the Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 27(3) of the Act: