Wealth Tax Rules, 1963‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑R. 8(3), proviso‑‑‑Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Ss.2(16), 2(24), 3, 7 & Second Sched.‑‑‑C.B.R. Circular No. 11 of 1994, dated 17‑7‑1994‑ Net wealth‑‑‑Valuation of land and building‑‑‑Valuation on the basis of actual rent received‑‑‑Self‑occupied house was rented out 8 days before the valuation date i.e. 22‑6‑1999‑‑‑Rent was admittedly realized only for 8 days during the assessment year‑‑‑Exemption for self‑occupied house was claimed as the house remained under the occupation of assessee even up to the date of valuation i.e. 30‑6‑1999 due to repairs and renovation to be carried out as per lease agreement‑‑‑Assessing Officer adopted the Gross Annual Rental Value on the basis of annual rent on the valuation date‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Rule 8(3), proviso, Wealth Tax Rules, 1963 puts some restrictions on the power of the Assessing Officer in estimating the gross annual rental value at a sum higher than the rent paid or, payable by the tenant‑‑‑Superficially it would show that if the assessee's tenant had paid rent of a period shorter than a year, say for 8 days as in the present case, then Assessing Officer could not expand such amount to cover the whole year on that basis, in other words, it would appear that by virtue of R.8(3), proviso the Assessihg Officer was obliged to estimate annual rental value equal to the actual rent of 8 days only‑‑‑Only actual rent received for 8 days be counted for the purpose of net wealth of assessee as for remaining period the house was in self -occupation of the assessee.

2001 PTD (Trib.) 22 rel.

I. T. A. No.255/KB of 1998‑99; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1403; 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404; W.T.A. No.472/KB of 1999‑2000 and 1988 PTD 605 ref.

Mian Mukhtar, I:T.P. for Appellant.

Agha Hadayatullah, D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th August, 2001.

ORDER

JAVAID IQBAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑‑This further appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), dated 30‑4‑2001. The grounds taken in this appeal are as under:‑‑‑

(1) That the learned CWT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of A.C.W.T. on the point of calculation of G.A.R.V. as adopted by A.C.W.T. on the basis of annual rent on the valuation date.

"

(2) Thai without prejudice to above the learned CWT(A) has grossly erred by not allowing the exemption under section 5/2nd Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, for self‑occupied house as the house although rented w.e.f. 22‑6‑1999 remained under his occupation even upto the date of valuation i.e. 30‑6‑1999 due to repairs and renovation to be carried out as per clause 6(d) of Lease Agreement, dated 22‑6‑1999.

(3) That the learned CWT(A) has erred by not considering the determination of G.A.R.V. in the light of reported case 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404. The ratio of referred decision is squarely applicable in the case of the appellant.

(4) That the learned CWT(A) was not justified in placing reliance on the unreported judgment of learned I.T.A.T. W.T.A. No.255/KB/1998‑99, dated 7‑4‑1999 and W.T.A. No' ' 472/KB 1999‑2000, dated 22‑8‑2000 which cases are distinguishable from the case of the appellant and the ratio of the subsequent judgment 2001 PTD (Trib) 22 is squarely applicable in the case of the appellant wherein it has been interpreted that in pursuance of provision to rule 8(3) of Wealth Tax Act. The law requires the Assessing Officer to estimate G.A.R.V. at a sum i.e. actually paid or payable by the tenant during the year unless he chosses to estimate at a higher sum with the approval of the I.A.C. and no such approval was obtained.

3. In response to call notices, learned Mr. Mian Mukhtiar, I.T.P., attended for appellant and learned Mr. Agha Hidayatullah, D.R. for respondent.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was owner of house No.C‑10, Block 8 Clifton, Karachi, which was its occupation of assessee upto 22‑6‑1999, an agreement of rent was executed with tenant. The rent was fixed at Rs.30,000 for premises and Rs.35,000 per month for furniture and fixture. The A.R. of the assessee contended that possession of the building was delivered to tenant after 30‑6‑1999 due to renovation and repair of the building as per agreement entered between the parties on 22‑6‑1999.

5. In response to statutory notices by Assessing Officer assessee was asked to file his return of wealth. In the wealth tax return assessee disclosed the above house as self‑occupied. The Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of assessee and assessed the same according to G.A.R.V. at Rs.65,000 per month. The assessee felt aggrieved with the orders and preferred appeal to the learned CWT(A). The grounds taken in the first appeal are as under:

*That the learned A.C.W.T. was grossly erred by not allowing the exemption under section 5/2nd Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, for self‑occupied house as the house although rented w.e.f. 22‑6‑1999 remained under his occupation even upto the date of valuation i.e. 30‑6‑1999 due to repairs and renovation to be carried out as per clause 6(d) of lease Agreement, dated 22‑6‑1999.

*That during the hearing of the case the A.C.W.T. was apprised of above fact but he has misconstrued and misconceived the facts and failed to appreciate the factual position while disallowing the exemption for self‑occupied house which is arbitrary and unwarranted in law.

*That without prejudice to above the learned A.C.W.T. has grossly erred in calculating the G.A.R.V. on the basis of rent received in the last month of the years. As per rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, G.A.R.V. is to be calculated on the basis of annual rent paid or payable by the tenant. Thus, determination of G.A.R.V. on the basis of rent received or receivable by the appellant in the last month of the year or as receivable on the valuation date in incorrect and unwarranted in law. Reliance is placed on reported law 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404.1he ratio of cases mentioned by the A.C.W.T. is not applicable in the case of appellant.

6. Return arguments were filed by the counsel of the appellant which are reproduced as under:‑‑

"Appellant is an individual and filed wealth tax return for the assessment year 1999‑2000, declaring negative wealth at (Rs.4,79,966) as exemption was claimed for Self‑occupied House No.C‑10, Block‑8, Clifton, Karachi. The debt owned on account of bank loan and advance rent were claimed which resulted into negative wealth. The Wealth Tax Officer, Circle E‑7, Zone‑E, Karachi, however, has not allowed the exemption under section 5/2nd Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and determined the G.A.R.V. of the said house at Rs.78,65,000 and after deducting liabilities for bank loan and advance rent balance total wealth at Rs.73,85,034 has been charged to wealth tax which is the subject‑matter of appeal before you.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant was residing in House No.C‑10, Block‑8. Clifton, Karachi, which was constructed in 1976, but due to migration of his sons to United States, being alone in Pakistan has rented this house on 22‑6‑1999, for monthly rent of Rs.30,000 for the premises and Rs.35,000 for furniture and fixture totalling Rs.65,000. This house was under self‑occupation till 20‑6‑1999. As per rent agreement, copy of which was provided to the Wealth Tax Officer, before handing over the house, repairing and renovation was to be done by the appellant for which Rs.1,00,000 was provided as school was to open to that house. Thus, factual position is that the house was handed over to the tenant after 30‑6‑1999, which is the date to the notice of Assessing Officer and under the facts and circumstances as stated above, exemption for self‑occupied house was rightly claimed.

The learned A.C.W.T. has not allowed the exemption for self- occupied house, contending that the house stood rented on the date of valuation i.e. 30‑6‑1999 and as per the interpretation under rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules read with C.B.R. Circular No.1l of 1994; wealth tax is chargeable on assets which are held by the assessee on the valuation date i.e. 30‑6‑1999. Therefore, according to him the appellant was liable to wealth tax on the basis of G.A.R.V. to the determined for whole year on the basis of rent agreement executed on 22‑6‑1995 i.e. only 8 days before valuation date. In this respect he has incorrectly placed reliance on the cases noted in the order i.e. I.T.A. bearing No.255/KB/98‑99, dated 7‑4‑1000 (sic), (not a provided to appellant) whereby it has been held for the purpose of wealth tax, valuation date is very important. Thus according to the A.C.W.T., rental value of the property is to be multiplied by 10 times of rent after including 10 % of the Security deposit. He has further placed reliance on a case reported (1994) PTD (Trib.) 1403.

It is vehemently contended that the learned Assessing Officer has misconstrued and misconceived the legal position and placed reliance on the cases referred in the assessment order the ratio of which is not applicable in the case of appellant. There is no dispute regarding the valuation date which are 30‑6‑1999. But the house remained self‑occupied upto 30‑6‑1999, as it was handed over to tenant after 30‑6‑1999 as per rent agreement discussed supra. The claim made for self‑occupied house has been brushed aside by (he A.C.W.T. without any valid reason, which is unjustified.

Without prejudice to above, the A.C.W.T. has grossly erred in calculating the G.A.R.V. for whole year on the basis of rent receivable in the last month of year as the rent agreement was made in last month of the year and house remained self‑occupied up to 22‑6‑1999, i.e. only 8 days before the valuation date it was rented @ Rs.65,000 per month and actual rent was realized only for 8 days during the assessment year 1999‑2000.

Reasonability of the rent has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer but he has calculated the G.A.R.V. for the whole year considering the monthly rent of Rs.65,000 + 10% of security deposit which is absolutely incorrect, unwarranted, unjustified and illegal as in pursuance of explanation to rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, G.A.R.V. is to be calculated on the basis of rent paid or payable by the tenant during the assessment. The rent paid to Rs.17,333 (35,000 + 30,000 = 65,000/30 x 8 = 17,333 and as per the method adopted by ACWT, the G.A.R.V. @ 10 times would be Rs.1,73,330. Thus, at the most he would have determined the G.A.R.V. of house on the valuation date at Rs.1,73,330 as calculated above and which was below the taxable limit.

Your kind attention invited to report case 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404 and subsequent recent judgment 2001 PTD Trib 22. Copies of the above decision are enclosed for your kind perusal. It has been held in these judgments that w.e.f. Assessment year 1992‑93 the law requires the Assessing Officer to estimate the G.A.R.V. at a sum i.e. actually paid or payable by the tenant during the year to the assessee unless he chooses to estimate at a higher sum with the approval of the I.A.C. The G.A.R.V. being much below taxable limit, the appellant was not liable to wealth tax and the wealth tax levied for 1999‑2000 is incorrect unlawful and unjustified.

7. After considering, the learned CWT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying upon the judgment reported as 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404 and judgment by the learned I.T.A.T. in Wealth Talc Appeal No.472/KB of 1999‑2000, dated 22‑8‑2000.

8. The A.R. of assessee before us repeated the same arguments. The learned D.R. of the department stressed that the order of the Assessing Officer is according to law and it is the valuation date i.e. 30th June which plays vital role in the process of assessment and on the same date the house was on rent and assessment was to be framed on the basis of this rent.

9. Before making comments on the case the relevant section 3 of Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and rule 8(3) are reproduced:

Charge of Wealth Tax

Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged for every financial year commencing on and from the first day of July, 1963, a tax (hereinafter referred to as wealth tax) in respect of the net wealth for assets on the corresponding valuation date of every "individuals, and association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and company at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule.

The term of net wealth and valuation, dates are defined as under:‑‑‑

Rule‑2(16) defined Net Wealth which is reproduced as under:

"(m) `Net wealth' means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owned by the assessee on the valuation date other than‑‑‑

(i) Debts which under section 6 are not to be taken into account; and

(ii) Debts which are secured on, or which have been incurred in relation to, any asset in respect of which wealth tax is not payable under this Act.

(iii) Where the right, title or interest to, or in any immovable property other than agricultural land, vests in more than one person, such persons shall in respect of such property, be assessed as an association of persons and the value of such right, title or interest shall not be included in the net wealth of an individual provided that wealth tax is charged on such right title or interest:

Section 2(24) defines the valuation date:

(P) `Valuation date', in relation to any year for which an assessment is to be made under this Act, means the last day of the year previous to the year for which the tax chargeable under this Act:

5. The manners of valuations are mentioned is section 7 of Wealth Tax.

They are reproduced as under:

"7. Value of assets how to be determined‑‑(1) The value of any assets other than cash for the purposes of this Act, shall be estimated by the Wealth Tax Officer in accordance with the rules made under section 46 of the Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1)‑‑‑

(a) Where the assessee is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularly the Wealth Tax Officer may, instead of determining separately the value of each assets held by the assessee in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as whole having regard to the balance sheet of such businesses as on the valuation date and making such adjustments therein as the circumstances of the case may require. "

In rule 8 of the relevant provision of sub‑rule (3) is provided as under:‑‑‑

"3. Lands and buildings.‑‑‑The value of lands and buildings (excluding agricultural land,) shall be estimated with due regard to the nature and size of the property, the amenities available and the price prevailing for similar (property) in the same locality or in the neighborhood of the said locality.

Provided that the Wealth Tax Officer shall not, except with the prior approval of the (C.B.R.) determine the value of any property at a sum higher than ten times the gross annual rental value of such property; and

Provided further that any a count by way of advance or security which is not adjustable against the rent payable by the tenant shall be taken into consideration for determining gross annual rental value.

10. From careful reading of the above provision it would appear as per charging section 3 wealth tax is payable by a person in respect of his net wealth, on the corresponding valuation date if net wealth exceeds the corresponding limit prescribed under the Act. We refer to definition of net wealth and valuation date than it would appear that the significant of valuation date is very important, because net wealth be determined on particular date. We would like to stress that this proposition of law is very much important and we agree that the arguments of the D.R. that the 30th June of each year is the date of valuation as well as the closing date of the year and what it would be the proprietorship or in possession of assessee in the capacity of ownership moveable or immovable must be counted towards his total net wealth, in this case too it is not doubted that on valuation date of the house in question was in the ownership of the assessee and its valuation be determined according to law and rules but the‑law also provided exemption of self‑occupation. The ownership to take under the same of provision of law.

11. The cases are referred 1994 PTD 1403, 1996 PTD (Trib.) 404.

1. 1994 PTD 1403.

"The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the property which was subject‑matter of valuation was let out, and the appellant had truly disclosed the actual Gross Annual Rental Value and on that basis the valuation of property was made by multiplying the actual Gross Annual Rental Value with ten times. The Assessing Officer after considering the facts that on the valuation date the rent per month, disclosed .by the appellant was the actual rent for the earlier 12 months and the same was capitalized for the purpose of arriving at a value of the properties." .

12. As regards to Gross Annual Rental Value in 1988 PTD page 605 it is observed: , .

...25. The question now arises as to what course of action could be adopted by a Wealth Tax Officer. If he finds that the actual rent received is lesser than the reasonable rent because of the payment of adjustable advance rent or security deposits? Mr. Muhammad Farid, the learned D.R., has suggested that by adding 10% of the advance rent or security deposits to the annual rent the reasonable annual rent could easily be achieved. But, with due respect we are not prepared to concede such a power to Wealth Tax Officer without legislative authority: We, therefore, think that keeping into consideration the size; amenities available and the locality, the reasonable rent could be ascertained from parallel cases. Mr. Muhammad Farid, the learned D.R., however, asked us as to why the legislature enacted second proviso if parallel cases were to be the criterion for determining the reasonable rent. Our answer to this question, however, is that the main reason for bringing second proviso on Statute Book appears to be that since there could possibly be a various kinds of deposits/advance rent with different intentions and for various purposes as discussed by us in the later part of our decision, the legislature directed the Wealth Tax Officer through second proviso to take them into considerations and fall back upon parallel cases if he found that the actual rent received was lesser than the reasonable rent but not otherwise.

13. The relevant facts for the appeal are that the property which is the matter of valuation was let out and the appellant had truly disclosed G.A.R.V. and on that basis the valuation of property was made by multiplying the actual Gross Annual Rental Value with 10 times. The Assessing Officer after consideration the facts that in the valuation date rate per month disclosed by the appellant was the actual rent for the earlier 12 months and the same was capitalized for the purpose of arriving at a value of properties. On appeal preferred by the assessee the learned CWI`(A) accepted the contention of the assessee. Appeal to learned Tribunal was filed by department. The learned I.T.A.T. in his conclusion gave tire finding that the order of learned CIT(A) was not propel and legal the same is hereby vacated and the order of the learned -tax officer is restored.

14.1996 PTD (Trib.) 404 the relevant paras. .3 and 4 are as under:

Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the respondent owns a building, which has beers let out to various tenants. The respondent declared value of the building by working out the gross annual rental value on the basis of rent received for the whole year, and then multiplying the same by 10. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept this method of working .out G.A.R.V, of the property. He worked out the G.A.R.V. by multiplying the rent for the last month of the year by 12 and then further multiplying it by 10, meaning thereby that the valuation dates which is 31‑12‑1986 was taken as the basis for working out the gross annual retrial value. The learned CIT(A? did not approve this method of working out the value of the property and directed to W.T.O. to adopt tire G.A.RA` In accordance with the actual figure of gross rent received for the whole year instead of basin‑ his valuation on the figures of the closing month of the year. The department is dissatisfied with' this direction and hence this appeal. The learned D.R. has submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly worked out the G.A.R.V.. of the building as according to him the value of the property is to be worked out on the basis of rent received on the valuation date. On the other hand, Mr. Arshad Siraj, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that while determining the G.A.R.V. the Assessing Officer has ignored the definition of G.A.R.V. as. contained in the explanation to rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963. He has contended that according to the said Explanation the G.A.R.V. is to be taken on the basis of rent received for the whole year and not on the last day of the year of valuation. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned representatives for the parties. The point in issue is, if the G.A.R.V. of a property for the purposes of rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules; 1963 is to be determined on the basis of rent received by a landlord for the whole year or on the basis of rent resolved by recourse to the Explanation to rule 8(3).

15. The learned Tribunal concluded the matter by holding that "thus the impugned directions by the learned I.T.A.T. is perfectly in consonance with the spirit of law for which no interference is required", It is held that Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating the value of property oh the basis of rent for the last month of the year. The impugned‑ direction of the learned CIT(A) is hereby maintained and appeal at the instance of department dismissed. .

16. Wealth Tax Appeal No.255/KB (Assessment year 1997‑98) unreported are as under:

The first grievance of the departments is that the A.A.C. has unjustifiably, reduced the value of rented property on the basis of capitalization at the rate of 10 times against the whole year's actual rent while the W.T.O. had worked out year's rent for the purpose on the basis of actual rent of the property on valuation date. For the purposes of wealth tax valuation date is very important and we feel that W.T.O's. decision was correct. The rent of the property had been enhanced during the year w.e.f. 1st December, 1997. The property was at rent of Rs.7,500 per month from 1‑7‑1996 to 30‑11‑1996 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.13,000 per month till the valuation date. Thus the rental value of the property on the date of valuation was Rs.13,000 per month or Rs.1,56,000 for the year. The W.T.O. was, therefore, fully justified to take the value at 10 times of this figure after including 10% of the refundable security deposit. In this connection reference is made to a decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal cited as (1994) PTD (Trib.) 1403. The order of the A.A.C. is vacated and that of the W.T.O. restored on this point.

17. 2001 PTD (Trib.) 22 are as under:‑‑‑

3. Briefly the facts are that for the assessment year 1997‑98, the property has been let out at the rate of Rs.40,000 p.m. from July, 1996‑97 up to March, 1997. Thereafter, it has remained vacant during the months of April and May, 1997. It has been let out again from 1st June, 1997 at a monthly rent of Rs.57,000. Thus, the appellant has declared the G,A.R.V. at Rs.4,17,000 for the assessment year 1998‑99 the G.A.R.V. of the property (supra), has been declared at Rs.6,63,100 for a period of eleven months and nineteen days because it has claimed that after June 19 upto June 30, 1998 the property has remained vacant. In this year G.A.R.V. , of the shop has been declared at Rs.16,523 at the rate of Rs.138 p.m.

4. The learned D.C.I.T. has not accepted the declared G.A.R.V. of the properties (supra), because according to him G.A.R.V. means the rental value of property for 12 months. He, therefore, has assessed the G.A.R.V. of the main property which is an office bearing Nos.507 and 508 at Clifton Center Karachi, at Rs.4,97,000 and in the assessment year 1998‑99 has been determined at Rs. On the ground that is G.A.R.V. was determined in the preceding year the same amount.

5. The learned CIT(A) has upheld the two impugned assessments.

6. The learned Tribunal in this case concluded that the assessment be made according to actual rent received or declared be accepted as such for the purpose of assessment.

18. In these cases rent received or might have .be received was accepted. The cases‑law mentioned above are not different from the present case due to fact that in the case law property mentioned were on rent and question of self‑occupation was not there. In matter before us property which is subject‑matter of appeal exemption is claimed on the basis of self‑occupation. Further, agreement with the tenant was executed on 22‑6‑1999 and according to assessee possession was delivered after the valuation date, no rent was received by the assessee for the whole year. In alternate it has been claimed that actual rent is received only the period of 8 days.

19. So, considering all relevant fact and support of ratio of applicability of the actual rent received by the assessee as enunciated in latest judgment cited as 2001 PTD (Trib) 22 only actual rent received for the 8 days be counted for the purpose of net wealth of assessee as for remaining period the house was in self‑occupation of assessee. Resultantly the appeal succeeds for the reason indicated above.

As per Inam Ellahi Sheikh, Chairman

20. I have perused the order proposed by my learned brother the Judicial Member. In Paragraph 19 of the above order, my‑ learned brother has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation of the property for the purpose of net wealth on the basis of the actual rent received for the 8 days. The reason for such finding is that the assessee had been living in the same house, which was let out to a third party with effect from 22‑6‑1999. Reliance has been placed by my learned brother on the decision of the Tribunal reported as 2001 PTD (Trib.) 22 discussed in Paragrpah‑17 above. The aforementioned order of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal is binding on this Bench and my learned brother has rightly followed the same. However, before agreeing with my learned brother on the same principle I would like to record a few reservations of my own.

21. The chargeability of wealth tax is determined by virtue of section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 which has already been reproduced above in Paragraph 9 by my learned brother. By such provisions‑of the law wealth tax is to be charged in respect of the net wealth or assets on the corresponding valuation date of every individual etc. The .basic requirement in this section is the existence of an asset on the valuation date, which is to be charged to wealth tax. If an assessee disposes of an asset before the valuation date. Say, 30th June of a year, no wealth tax will be payable or chargeable on that asset. On the other hand if an assessee acquires an asset on the last date, i.e., the valuation date, then the asset will be subjected to charge of wealth tax at full rate subject to the other provisions of the law. In my humble view, there is no concept of proration in the wealth tax law in respect of chargeability to tax, exemption or valuation rule 8(3), as already reproduced above, lays down the guideline for determining the valuation of land and building included or includable in the net wealth of an assessee. The said rule 8(3) contains the following proviso, which appears to have escaped the attention of my learned brother.

"Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not, without the prior approval of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner, estimate the gross annual rental value at a sum higher that the rent paid or payable by the tenant."

22. This proviso puts some restrictions on the power of the Deputy Commissioner in estimating the gross annual rental value at a sum higher than the rent plaid or payable by the tenant. Superficially it would show that if the assessee's tenant has paid rent of a period shorter than a year,, say for 8 days as in the present case, then Deputy Commissioner cannot expend such amount to cover the whole year on that basis. In otherwords, it would appear that by virtue of this proviso the Assessing Officer is obliged to estimate annual rental value equal to the actual rent of 8 days only. What would happen if the assessee had let out the property on 30th June or, if he had simply vacated the house before 301 June? In the later instance, the house would not be let out at all and, thus carry no value for wealth tax and also would the assessee be entitled to statutory exemption of Rs.1.0 million? In my humble view this would give a ridiculous interpretation of this proviso and it appears that the proviso has not been properly worded. Any proration of the valuation may also involve the proration of the statutory allowance i.e. Rs.1.0 million. However, in view of‑the existence of an earlier order of the Tribunal and also the somewhat ambiguity in the proviso as mentioned above, I hereby give my consent to the order of the learned Judicial Member. The appeal may be allowed in the manner and to the extent!, indicated by my learned brother, the Judicial Member.

C.M.A./M.A.K./195/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.