RAJU J.

The above tax cases are by way of references to this court from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), referring the following two questions for the opinion of this court

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-individual is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv)(a) in respect of the exempted asset, namely, agricultural land held by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, in computing the net wealth of the assessee ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire coffee and tea bushes fall within the expression 'growing crops' in section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act ?" *

The facts and circumstances in which these questions arose and were referred to this court are almost similar, except perhaps that they relate to different assessees, assessment years and with reference to a different quantum of net wealth in individual cases. The broad and relevant facts necessary to appreciate the problems posed for our opinion may be set out hereinafter before undertaking a consideration of the relevant questions themselves. The assessees are individuals who are partners in firms owning estates and holding tea or coffee gardens. While computing the net wealth of the respective assessees, the Wealth-tax Officers concerned added the value of the interest of the assessee-partner in the firm as movable property and computed it as a share of net wealth of the firm. While doing so, the Wealth-tax Officer excluded the exempted assets to the extent provided under section 5 of the Act. The assessees also claimed that the tea and coffee bushes in the gardens of the estates must be treated as standing crops and exempted under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act without any limit unlike the agricultural lands which were exempt under section 5(1)(iv)(a) of the Act only up to the specified and prescribed limitThe assessing authority was of the view that the standing crops in the case of tea bushes would mean only the two leaves and a bud and, therefore, rejected the contention of the assessee to the contrary. On appeals preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the appellate authority accepted the contention of the assessee that it was the partner who was the real owner of, the asset held by the firm and inasmuch as it was only the partner who would be the assessee and not the firms for the purposes of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the deduction under section 5 of the Act should be given only while computing the net wealth of the assessee and not while computing the net wealth of the firm. The appellate authority was also of the view that in common parlance the crop meant, the entire plant with leaves and, therefore, the entire value of the bushes had to be exempted under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act

Aggrieved, to the extent those orders of the appellate authority went against the interests and claims of the Revenue as well as the assessee, appeals were filed by both to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the share of a partner in a firm has to be taken to be a share in every asset of the firm and, therefore, the partner was entitled to exemption in respect of a share in an exempted asset held by the firm. The Tribunal was also of the view that under the Wealth-tax Act, a firm was not an assessee and, therefore, the exemption would be available in the hands of the partners who were the assessees and, consequently, the exemption would be available in the hands of the partners, who were the assessees. As far as the claim relating to exemption under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act, the Tribunal held that in the context of the Wealth-tax Act, the difference between the asset and yield was vital and, therefore, the growing crop could not mean the "plants collectively", which was an asset, whereas the exemption was intended to be granted