A house may consist of more than one self-contained dwelling unit and that if there is unity of structure, the mere fact that such self-contained dwelling units are occupied by different persons, will not make that house into several houses.

Chandrashekhar, J.

1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), has referred to this court the following question of law :

"Whether house properties bearing the Municipal door Nos. 92, 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, and 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad, occupied as residences by different members of the assessee-Hindu undivided family together constitute 'one house' belonging to the assessee and as such are exempt under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?"

2. The material facts, as set out in the statement of the case, are briefly as follows: The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It consists of four adult male members. They are living in four different independent residential units which are connected by a common passage in a building owned by them and bearing Municipal door Nos. 92 and 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, in Allahabad. A part of that building was constructed in the year 1960 and was assigned Municipal door No. 92. That building was extended in the year 1963 and such extended portion was assigned door No. 92-A. Two of the residential units are situate in the portion of the building bearing door No. 92 and the remaining two residential units, in the portion bearing door No. 92-A. The assessee-family also owned another building bearing Municipal door No. 17/33, in another locality, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad. A part of that building was let out and a part of it was in the occupation of the assessee's family. In the course of assessment for wealth-tax for the year 1966-67, the assessee-family claimed exemption under Clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), in respect of the value of the building bearing Municipal door Nos. 92 and 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, Allahabad, and the value of the building bearing Municipal door No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad The Wealth-tax Officer exempted only the portion of the house bearing door No. 92, but declined to exempt the other portion of the house bearing door No. 92-A, Darbhanga Castle, Allahabad, and the building bearing door No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad.

3. In the successive appeals filed by the assessee, the decision of the Wealth-tax Officer on the question of such exemption was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.

4. In its order the Tribunal has observed, inter alia, as follows :

"The fact that these houses bear separate Municipal door Nos. 92 and 92-A, itself shows that they were independent units of assessment and cannot be treated as one house. It is farther an undisputed fact that house No. 92 was built in 1960 and house No. 92-A in 1963 and they were independent of each other. On the basis of these facts we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption only in respect of one house No. 92 and it is not entitled to any exemption in respect of the other house No. 92-A under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act."

In this reference Shri R.K. Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the portions of the building bearing Nos. 92 and 92-A formed only one house and that, as that house was in exclusive use of the assessee-family for their residential purpose, the entire building consisting of both these portions should have been exempted in determining the net wealth of the assessee-family. It was also contended by Shri Gulati that since the building bearing door No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad, was also occupied by the assessee-family, the value of that house should also have been exempted in determining the net wealth of the assessee.

5. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Gupta, learned standing counsel for the department, argued in support of the view taken by the Tribunal.

6. To appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act defines "assessee"