COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. C G RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions referred to this court read as follows "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no additional wealth-tax is leviable in respect of the property known as Geetha Lodge in which the assessee has got 1/3rd share ?.

(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the property known as Geetha Lodge of which the assessee is owner of 1/3rd share could be treated as 'business premises' within the meaning of rule 1(i) of Para B of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, even though the property was let out to the firm of Geetha Lodge and Co., in which the assessee is a partner ?"The questions are common for both the cases as the assessee is the same. However, the assessment years are different. The assessee is a co-owner of the property in question, which is used for business purposes in partnership with two other co-owners. The question that was raised before the Tribunal was whether the use of the business premises in partnership would amount to the use by the assessee. The Tribunal answered the said question in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by it, the Revenue has come up to this court seeking answers to the above two questions.Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the principles laid down by this court in the case of CIT v. K. M. Jagannathan, interpreting the scope of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, will apply to the facts of these cases. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision stated supra, we answer the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.