TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a which was used for office purpose, constituted a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purpose within the meaning of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?" The assessment years are 1976-77 and 1977-78. The relevant valuation dates are March 31, 1976 and March 31, 1977, respectively. In the return of net wealth filed on February 7, 1981, the benefit of valuation in respect of self-occupied house property was claimed by the assessee only in respect of Muff Villa, Jamnagar. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the said claim was revised vide letter dated March 25, 1982 and the assessee claimed that the self-occupied property consisted of Muff Villa and Queen Villa together. The Wealth-ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the two buildings. It is further held that on consideration of the report and the observations therein that both the buildings were constructed at the same time and were self-occupied properties of the owner this supports the contention of the assessee. It is further found by the Tribunal that the two buildings comprise garages and servant quarters and while Muff Villa was used by the assessee for his residence, Queen Villa was used for office purposes. On these facts, the Tribunal has upheld the claim of the assessee that the two properties are required to be valued under section 7(4) of the Act as the said properties comprise one self-occupied house of the assessee. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence, the rejection of the claim on the basis of past records has not been accepted by the Tribunal. That is the only inference, one can state, in the absence of any specific challenge by way of a question to the effect that the Tribunal had failed to deal with the said aspect of the controversy. The law on the subject is well-settled and bears no repetition. This court in the case of CWT v. Anilkumar M. Virani [2002] 258 ITR 81 was required to resolve the controversy in relation to the same provision, viz., section 7(4) of the Act, in a case where the assessee was a non-resident and the house property was not occupied by the said assessee for the whole year, i.e., the entire period of twelve months. This court held that the "expression e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly and not in a pedantic sense or impracticably. In other words, even if the assessee does not use the house himself, it would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of the provision if the house is not let out on rent or allowed to be used for commercial purposes. It was held that what was material was constructive possession and occupation of the house property so as to enable the assessee to use the same as and when the assessee desired to do so. In the case of CWT v. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh [1972] 83 ITR 52, the Delhi High Court held that the words "for residential purposes" are contrasted with non-residential purposes such as commercial purposes, and further the words mean that the house is used by the assessee solely as residen....