Residential house exemption under estate duty law preserved despite residence elsewhere and structural damage; unfiled additional evidence excluded.

Exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act applies to one house, or part of a house, exclusively used by the deceased for residence. The Morvi house qualified because the deceased owned it, the will indicated that he often stayed there, and there was no material showing it had been let out or used by others. Exclusive residential use does not require continuous physical occupation, and residence elsewhere does not by itself defeat the exemption. Structural damage or flood impact also does not change the house's residential character for this purpose. Additional documents not produced before the lower authorities cannot be read in evidence absent permission for additional evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act was available in respect of the house at Morvi as a residential house exclusively used by the deceased for his residence; (ii) Whether the materials sought to be produced for the first time before the appellate forum could be read in evidence.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act was available in respect of the house at Morvi as a residential house exclusively used by the deceased for his residence.

Analysis: The exemption applies to one house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for residence. The house at Morvi was owned by the deceased, the will recited that he often resided there, and there was no material to show that it had been let out or used by anyone else. The expression "exclusively used by the deceased for his residence" does not require continuous physical presence in the house. The fact that the deceased also resided at Kanpur did not defeat the claim to exemption for the Morvi house. Damage by floods or cracks in the structure did not alter its character as a residential house for the purpose of the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 33(1)(n) was available and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials sought to be produced for the first time before the appellate forum could be read in evidence.

Analysis: The additional papers, except the will and the approved valuer's report, had not been produced before the authorities below and no permission was sought to adduce them as additional evidence. In those circumstances, they were not liable to be read in evidence.

Conclusion: The additional materials were rejected from evidence.

Final Conclusion: The house at Morvi qualified for exemption as a residential house used by the deceased for his residence, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A house does not cease to qualify for exemption as a residential house merely because the deceased also resided elsewhere or because the house was damaged, so long as it remained a house exclusively used for his residence and was not shown to have been let out or used by others.

---