COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. ASHOK RAJE GAEKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "C" has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under the provisions of Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

(2.) The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family and the relevant assessment years were 1979-80 and 1981-82. The dispute centers around the valuation of the building known as "Dhairya Prasad", which belonged to the assessee-HUF. The case of the assessee was that the conditions mentioned in Section 7(4) were fulfilled and, therefore, the benefit of this provision should be allowed to the assessee in respect of the said house. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, negatived the claim on the ground that at no time in the past, the assessee had claimed this property to be self-occupied and that even though exemption was claimed in respect of this house property, it was under the provisions of Section 5 (1)(ivb) as a farm-house and that, in fact, in the year 1981-82, the assessee had claimed the property to be exempted under Section 2 (2)(b). The W.T.O. held that, on the principle of estoppel, the claim of the assessee for the benefit under Section 7(4) could not be entertained. It was further held that, the HUF was not a natural person and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 7(4) of the Act.

(3.) It is clear from the record that the house in question has been found by all the authorities to have been used for the residential purpose during the period relevant to the three assessment years. The Tribunal took note of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer that the property in question was wholly occupied by the HUF. It was also found that the property was suitable for stay of the concerned family and it was not meant to be used simply as a farm house. The finding of the Tribunal and the authorities below it that the house in question was used by the assessee-HUF for residential purpose, based on the material that was produced on record, is not questioned before us. Even before the Tribunal it was not contended that the assessee had not used the property as a residence during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation dates involved in the three appeals before the Tribunal, from which this Reference has arisen.