Per Shri A.R. Halder, Judicial Member - These appeals by the revenue are directed on the common ground that the AAC was wrong in direct- ing the WTO to grant relief under section 5(1)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), in respect of his share in the property which he succeeded on the death of his father and held jointly by the alleged HUF, ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Bishwanath Chatterjee [1976] 103 ITR 536.

2. The assessee, an individual, claimed deduction under section 5(1)(ii) in respect of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, representing the value of his share in non-agricultural and agricultural ancestral property which was inherited by the assessee from his father and owned jointly with other co-sharers. The WTO negatived this claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no nucleus of the HUF and the assessee's share in the ancestral property was clearly ascertainable.

3. When the matter went up to the AAC, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that on the death of the assessee's grandfather, who died intestate, the properties devolved in equal shares on the assessee's father and uncle. It was contended that the assessee's father