Pattanaik, J. - (1.) In this appeal by grant of certificate by Delhi High Court interpretation of Section 5(1) (iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)is involved. On an application being filed under Section 27(1) of the Act the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for being answered:-"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the buildings of the Khas Bagh palace which were let out to different persons from whom a rental income was received by the assessee were not in the occupation of the assessee within the meaning of Section 5 (1)(iii)of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and hence the value there of was includible in the net wealth of the assessee -
(2.) The assessee Late H. H. Nawab Sir Syed Raza Ali Khan, Newab of Rampur is the owner of Khas Bagh Palace. The said Palace was declared by the Central Government in exercise of power under paragraph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, to be the official residence of the Ruler. During the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee claimed exemption of the aforesaid Palace in computation of the wealth under the Wealth-tax Act under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act, The wealth-tax officer on consideration of the materials before him came to the conclusion that the Palace having consisted of number of buildings the assessee would be entitled to exemption only in respect of the building or the portions of the building which is in the occupation of the Ruler and on the said conclusion he found that the estimated market value of several buildings which had been let out to be Rs. 3,55,000/-. This valuation obviously he found out on the basis of the rental income derived by the assessee. He accordingly took that into consideration in computation and levying wealth-tax on the same. Being aggrieved by the order of the Officer the assessee moved an appeal and the Asstt. Commissioner in appeal as well as the Tribunal in Second Appeal confirmed the assessment made. But on an application being filed under Section 27 of the Act the Tribunal made the reference on the question as already stated. The High Court in the impugned decision came to the conclusion that a restrictive interpretation of Section 5(1) of the Act would disentitle the assessee of any exemption since the building in question is not under the occupation of the Ruler fully. It also came to the conclusion that liberal interpretation of the said provision would entitle the assessee to exemption to the extent the assessee occupies the building or the portion of the building and, therefore, the liberal interpretation should be preferred. With this finding the High Court answered the question referred to in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
(3.) Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the expression "anyone building" in Section 5 (1)(iii) is not susceptible of an interpretation by making a further dissection to import into it the portion of the building or whole of the building as that would tantamount to a fresh legislation which the Court is not empowered to do. According to the learned counsel the Central Government having declared the Ram Bagh Palace to be the official residence of the assessee in exercise of power under paragraph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, the said building would be excluded from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act, This being the position, the High Court committed an error in answering the question posed in favour of the Revenue. The learned counsel urged that in interpreting the taxing statute it is not permissible for the Court to look to the policy behind the statute and the Court would be entitled to give a plain meaning to the words used in the Statute. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarathi Venkata Subbarao (1971) 1 SCC 545 , and M/s. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Excise Commissioner, U. P. (1971) 1 SCC 4. It is, therefore, urged that a plain literal meaning being given to each part of Section 5(1)(iii), the said provision is susceptible of only one construction, namely, that building which has been declared by the Central Government to be the official residence of the Ruler cannot be included in the assets of the assessee for the purpose of determining the wealth-tax payable by an assessee.;