Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) The assessee in this case is a limited company. The relevant valuation dates are November 30, 1957 and November 30, 1958 for the Wealth-tax assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. It appears that the assesses claimed exemption under Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on the value of certain alleged Dwelling houses, Store Houses and Out-houses belonging to the company. It had also claimed exemption under Section 5 (1) (ix) of the same Act in respect of certain items of machinery alleged to have been used for agricultural operations conducted by the company for the purposes of growing and maintaining tea bushes as well as in respect of the values of lorries and cars claimed to have been used in connection with the raising of agricultural produce which is tea leaves in this case.
(2.) In both the assessment years, the Wealth-tax Officer summarily rejected the claim of the assessee under both the sections. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee furnished a break up of the different categories of assets for both the years in respect of which exemption had been claimed. Regarding the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that certain items of buildings were to be exempted under that section. In respect of the five different items, mentioned in the order the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the opinion that since the structures of items 1 to 3 were entirely used for agricultural purposes, the entire values should be exempted; but so far as items 4 and 5 mentioned in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he found that these were used both for keeping tractors and other cars and hence he allowed 50% of the value of the garages and sheds as being exempt Under Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act. In respect of the other category of buildings appearing in the break-up statement filed by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that these could neither be treated as Dwelling Houses nor as Store Houses for the purpose of exemption under Section 2 (e) (ii). In respect of those machinery which were used exclusively for agricultural purposes, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that those were tools and implements used by the assessee for raising agricultural produce and as such, must be exempt under Section 5 (1) (ix) of the Act. But so far as other items of machinery, such as motor cars, lorries etc., he held that those were not governed by the provisions of Section 5 (1) (ix) of the Act for the purpose of exemption.
(3.) Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both the Department as well as the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee that the expression "dwelling house" as used Under Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act could be equated with the term "residence". The Tribunal, however, held that the phrase "dwelling house" is of narrower connotation than the word "residence" and "dwelling house" could only mean the place of residence of human beings. The Tribunal also rejected the alternative contention put forward on behalf of the assessee that the Manager's bungalow and other staff quarters, even if they could not be treated as "dwelling houses' might be classed as cut-houses" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the existence of an out-house is closely associated with a dwelling house and since in the present case it has been held that a limited company could not have a dwelling house, the question of treating any place as out-house to such dwelling house did not arise. As an off-shoot of the same issue, the Tribunal held against the company that neither the balance of 50% in respect of the garages and sheds partly used for agricultural operations, as found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor the value of kitchens and shops etc., utilised by the labour population engaged in both agricultural and manufacturing operations would be exempt under the category of "out-house" within the meaning of Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. But as regard certain general store houses for the purpose of storing rice, fuel, tea-chests etc., the Tribunal found that these store houses were required for both purposes and in the absence of any clear-cut demarcation or allotment, it allowed 60% of the value of such store houses as being exempt under the proviso to Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act. This was in addition to what had been found to be exclusively used for storing agricultural implements, manure and as stables for cattle utilised for agricultural operations. As regards the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 5 (1) (ix) of the Act, the Tribunal found that none of the items of machinery included in the list of "machinery used for or in connection with agricultural and other purposes", nor the lorries and motor cars alleged to have been used both for agricultural and manufacturing operations, could be treated as "tools and implements" within the meaning of Section 5 (1) (ix) of the Act.;