COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. E K MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law under s. 27 of the WT Act :

(2.) WE shall state the facts of the case so far as it is necessary to anwer the questions referred. The two references arise out of assessment proceedings in respect of two assessees who are partners of a firm M/s E.K. Mathew & Bros. for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78. Common issues arise in both the cases. The partnership owned among other assets a tea estate called 'Alampally Estate' and a rubber estate called 'Glenrock Rubber Estate'. The computation of the interest of these two estates was in dispute. The assessees had claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(iva) in respect of the interest they had in the estates. The partnership had taken a loan on the security of the property in Alampally Estate from the Federal Bank.

(3.) SO far as the first question is concerned, it is concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in CWT vs. Smt. Kaethikamal Kumari Varma (Ker) (FB) 179 ITR 543(1989) : (1990) 81 CTR (Ker) (FB) 233 wherein it was held that where the assessee was a partner of a firm and the assets of the firm included agricultural lands, in computing the net wealth of the assessee, the value of the share of the assessee in the agricultural lands was includible in his net wealth and the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(iva) of the WT Act, 1957 to the extent of their value upto Rs. 1,50,000. In the light of the above Full Bench decision, the first question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.