Since grounds raised in these three appeals by assessee are identical, we would for sake of brevity and convenience consolidate them and dispose them of by common order. Shri B. B. Khare, advocate, ld. counsel of appellant, has assailed common order passed by AAC and contended that appellant company being AOP, no liability under WT Act could be imposed upon it. Referring to provision of s. 3 of WT Act he ld. counsel submits that WT Act ld. counsel submits that wealth tax is exigible only on those person who are either individual, HUF or company by status and that since assessee which was members club did not fall in anyone of three categories on which wealth-tax is chargeable, WTO and similarly AAC of WT were not justified in fastening charge of wealth-tax upon assessee. Mr. Khare has taken us through various decision of Hon ble High Courts of Gujarat, Bombay and Calcutta reported in Orient Club vs. WTO (1979) 12 CTR (Guj) 166: (1980) 123 ITR 395 (Guj), Orient Club vs. WTO (1982) 29 CTR (Bom) 117: (1982) 136 ITR 697 (Bom) Willingdon Sports Club vs. C. B. Patil, Third Addl. WTO & Anr. (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 226: (1982) 137 ITR 83 (Bom, Rayal Calcutta Trust Club vs. WTO & Ors. (1984) 43 CTR (Cal) 195: (1984) 148 ITR 790 (Cal) in order to contend that members club is AOP on which no wealth-tax is leviable under provisions of s. 3 of WT Act, 1957. Mr. Khare has further contended that reliance placed by lower authorities on decision of Supreme Court of India in case of Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 163: (1973) 88 ITR 47 (SC) and of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CWT vs. Hyderabad Race Club 1978 CTR (AP) 136: (1978) 115 ITR 453 (AP) does not at all help case of Department as, according to him, those decision do not apply to facts of present case. On other hand, Shri M. K. Chakraborty, ld. Departmental Representative has supported order passed by WTO and AAC. According to him, members club is liable to wealth-tax in status of individual and for so contending reliance has been placed by him on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court of India reported in WTO vs. C. K. Mammed Kayi (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 345: (1981) 129 ITR 307 (SC) and Trustees of Gordhandas Govind Ram Family Charity Trust vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 103: (1973) 88 ITR 47 (SC). We have considered rival submissions. Before referring to cases relied upon side of assessee we may deal with decision relied upon side of Department. As far as decision of he Hon ble Supreme Court of India in WTO vs. C. K. Mammed Kayi (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 345: (1981) 129 ITR 307 (SC) is concerned, we find after carefully going through it that what their Lordships held in that case was that Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarwards were liable to assessment in status of individual as per provisions of s. 3 of WT Act, 1957. Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarward is sect of Muslim undivided families of North Malabar who are governed by Marumakkathayam Act (Madras Act 17 of 1939). Their Lordships considered special attributes of these Muslim undivided families and then held that term individual in s. 3 of WT Act would include group of individuals like Mapilla Tarward. According to us, this decision would not apply in case of member s club which is AOP. In fact this decision of Hon ble Supreme Court of India was noticed by their Lordships of Hon ble Bombay High Court while deciding case of Orient Club vs. CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Bom) 117: (1982) ITR 697 (Bom). After noticing this decision as also other decision of Hon ble Supreme Court of India in case of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust 1973 CTR (SC) 103: (1973) 88 ITR 47 (SC) their Lordships of Bombay High Court held that facts in these two Supreme Court cases were distinguishable and that they could not be applied in case of members club which according to them was AOP and therefore, not liable to wealth-tax Respectfully following this decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court and other decisions reported in Orient Club vs. WTO (1979) 12 CTR (Guj) 166: (1980) 123 ITR 395 (Guj), (1984) 43 CTR (Cal) 195: (1984) 148 ITR 790 (Cal) and (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 226: (1982) 137 ITR 83 (Bom), we would hold that members club is AOP which does not fall within taxable entities provided in s.3 of WT Act, 1957. decision of he Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1978 CTR (AP) 136: (1978) 115 ITR 453 (AP), on which reliance was placed by first appellate authority seems to us to be wholly redundant for deciding controversy presently before us. In that case question for consideration was as to whether objects of Hyderabad Race Club were charitable in nature and whether club was entitled to exemption under provisions of s. 5(1) (i) of he WT Act, 1957. That point is not under consideration before us in present case. point that is before us is as to whether members club would fall within charging section of WT Act or not and we would hold on basis of pre-ponderant judicial opinion as available in above mentioned four decision of Hon ble Bombay, Gujarat, and Calcutta High Courts that members club does not fall within anyone of three entities which are chargeable to wealth-tax under provisions of s. 3. we would, therefore, reverse finding of lower authorities on point. Since we are holding that Jiwaji Club, Gwalior was not liable to wealth-tax. We do not consider it necessary to adjudicate upon quantum of net wealth which has been assessed by lower authorities. appeals filed by assessee are allowed. *** SECRETARY, JIWAJI CLUB v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER