- (1.) THE Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court : "Whether the Tribunal has been in error in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, 1957 in respect of the immovable property of Raj Shree Cinema of the firm M/s Agrawal Enterprises, in which he was a partner subject to the maximum permissible limit of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of asst. yr. 1980 -81 -
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The respondent is a partner in the firm M/s Agrawal Enterprises which owns a cinema building known as Raj Shree Cinema. The respondent claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) (sic) of the Act in respect of his proportionate share in the said cinema building. The WTO had disallowed exemption which was upheld by the CWT(A). However, the Tribunal has allowed the exemption.
(3.) WE have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent -assessee. Exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act is admissible to a house or a part of a house belonging to the assessee. The cinema building cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be a house inasmuch as house is the place where people reside. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Kishan Gupta (2003) 185 CTR (All) 340 : (2003) 264 ITR 482 (All) has held that exemption in respect of a cinema building is not available under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.;