Residential house exemption requires proof that work compelled residence elsewhere, not mere personal convenience.

Exemption under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is available only when the assessee proves an inability to occupy the residential house because employment, business or profession elsewhere required residence in another building not belonging to him. The decisive requirement is a direct nexus between living elsewhere and the exigencies of work. On the Tribunal's findings, the assessee stayed with his father for personal convenience, not because of any business compulsion, and there was no material showing that he could not occupy the house while carrying on the partnership business. The exemption was therefore not available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 23(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory benefit under section 23(3) is available only where the assessee proves that he could not occupy the residential house because, owing to his employment, business or profession carried on elsewhere, he had to reside at that other place in a building not belonging to him. The essential requirement is a nexus between residence in another building and the exigencies of employment, business or profession. On the Tribunal's findings, the assessee lived with his father for personal convenience, the house was not left vacant because of any business compulsion, and no material showed that he could not occupy the house while carrying on the partnership business.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---