( 1 ) INCOME-TAX Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, "a" has referred the following two questions at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" ). "1. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the New Palace at Morvi could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee?2. IF answer to the question No. 1 is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 in respect of the New Palace at Morvi?"

( 2 ) THE Assessment Years are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the relevant valuation dates are 31st March, 1975, 31st March, 1976 and 31st March, 1977 respectively. The assessee is the executor of the estate of Late Shri Mahendrasinhji, the Ruler of Morvi. She filed return of wealth and in part IV pointed out that the New Palace at Morbi was exempt under Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer accepted the assessees claim. Commissioner of Wealth-tax initiated proceedings under Section 25 (2) of the Act and held that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the value of the New Palace palace at Morbi was included in the estate of Late Shri Mahendrasinhji, which remained to be administered on the valuation date; that Shri Mahendrasinhji had ceased to be the Ruler; that the assessee - H. H. Vijaykunvarba was the legal owner of the estate of which the palace formed a part, and as she was not the Ruler in occupation of the palace, the value of the palace was erroneously excluded from the net wealth. Similar orders were passed by the Commissioner for all the three years under consideration.

( 3 ) THE assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, for the reasons recorded in its order held that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not justified in passing the revisional order under Section 25 (2) of the Act, because firstly, there was no question of including the value of the New Palace at Morbi in the net wealth of the assessee, and secondly, even if the New Palace was treated as an asset of the assessee, the assessee will be entitled to claim exemption under Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act.

( 4 ) WE have heard Shri Akil Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Revenue and Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee.

( 5 ) MR. Qureshi placed reliance upon Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act to contend that the executor was only a legal representative of the deceased and all the properties of the deceased vested in the executor. It was, therefore, contended that the assessee was the owner of the property till the estate was completely administered, and as she was not the Ruler, provisions of Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act or the exemption by virtue of the notification under Part - B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 would not be available to the assessee. Mr. Qureshi also placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 19 (A) with special reference to sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said Section to contend that till the administration of the estate is complete, the executor is liable under the wealth-tax and is to be assessed in the status of an individual as owner of the property left behind by the deceased. He, therefore, urged that the Tribunal had committed an error of law in holding that the assessee was not liable to show the value of the New Palace in the wealth-tax return filed on behalf of the assessee. 5. 1 as against this, Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal has reproduced the provisions of Section 2 (p) of the Act, which defin