Since above appeals relate to same assessee and are inter-related, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. 2. assessee is co-owner of property situated at 24/73, Birhana Road, Kanpur. Besides, he is also partner in firms, which in their turn, also own immovable properties. WTO had made assessment on 30-31-1981 on net wealth of Rs. 19,03,120. This included one-third share of assessee in firm of Nagarmal & Co. taken at Rs. 26,812. 3. Commissioner being of opinion that order passed by WTO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to interest of revenue, initiated proceedings under section 25(2) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). In notice issued on 10-2-1983 under above section, to assessee, Commissioner pointed out two errors to value of assessee's share in firm of Nagarmal & Co. Commissioner stated that there was appreciation in value of property belonging to above firm and if that appreciation was taken into account, then assessee's share worked out to Rs. 1,35,724 as against Rs. 26,812 included in assessment. It was pointed out to assessee that there was, thus, under-valuation of his share in above firm to extent of Rs. 1,08,912. It will be pertinent to mention here that Commissioner specifically pointed out that above appreciation of Rs. 1,33,216 included in above amount in property had been worked out by departmental valuer. second error pointed out by him was that assessee had been under-charged additional wealth-tax leviable on urban assets. Commissioner worked out value of urban assets at Rs. 11,70,517. On this, additional wealth-tax worked out to Rs. 36,935. He pointed out in notice that as against above charge, actual charge was only Rs. 21,915, thereby resulting in short charge of Rs. 14,960. 4. At time of hearing before Commissioner it was argued by learned counsel for assessee that assessee was not provided with any valuation report indicating value of property belonging to Nagarmal & Co. higher by Rs. 1,33,216 than value originally adopted. He submitted that he would have not objection in adoption of value as determined by departmental valuer at Rs. 1,57,000 if there was any such report on record of WTO. Commissioner did not deal with this matter further nor did he give any finding on this issue in operative part of his order contained in paragraph 5. 4.1 With regard to second error regarding under-charge of additional wealth-tax, it was pointed out to Commissioner that Rs. 11,70,517 included value of two properties belonging to firms of New Cawnpore Flour Mills and Nagarmal & Co., which were assessee's business assets. It was argued before Commissioner that additional wealth-tax was chargeable on assets other than business premises. In this connection, attention of Commissioner was also invited to definition of 'business premises' appearing in rule 1 of Paragraph B of Part I of Schedule I of Act. This contention was rejected by Commissioner in view of rule 3 of Part I of Schedule I thereof. We will have occasion to deal with this rule little later in our this order. Commissioner finally held as under: "5. In view of above positions, additional wealth-tax is leviable even in respect of share of partners in business firms. failure of WTO to charge such tax is prejudicial to interests of revenue. As such order of WTO for assessment year 1976-77 is set aside for being framed afresh." 5. assessee had also filed appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against assessment order challenging valuation of properties. Commissioner (Appeals) treated appeal as infructuous in view of finding of Commissioner setting aside entire assessment for being made afresh. 6. present appeals have been filed by assessee against order of Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals), respective. learned counsel for assessee repeated contentions, which were pleaded before Commissioner. It was again submitted before us that there was no report of n y Valuation Officer suggesting that value of property belonging to Nagarmal & Co. had shown any appreciation to extent of Rs. 1,57,300. He still maintained that if there was any such report, he would have no objection to adoption of new value for purposes of tax in assessment of assessee. He also submitted that it appeared that Commissioner had accepted above claim of assessee inasmuch as he had not directed setting aside of assessment on above basis as would appear from para 5 of his order. 7. On behalf of department, it was submitted that if there was any lacuna in operative part of order of Commissioner it was open to Tribunal to either call for remand report or direct him to plug lacuna and pass proper order. learned departmental representative was, however, unable to place before us any copy of report of Valuation Officer with regard to valuation of property belonging to Nagarmal & Co. 8. We have carefully considered submissions placed before us. In absence of any report of any Valuation Officer, it cannot be said that there was any appreciation in value of property belonging to above firm. There is also no material on record to suggest any such appreciation. In that view of matter, it will not be proper to set aside assessment and direct WTO to adopt new valuation or enhance value of property. 9. To us, it appears that claim of assessee in this regard had been accepted by Commissioner and, therefore, he did not set aside assessment on this ground. order of WTO cannot, therefore, be called erroneous or prejudicial to interests of revenue on this score. 10. With regard to charge of additional wealth-tax, it was submitted by learned counsel for assessee that actually WTO had not charged any such tax. He then argued that Legislature has specifically exempted business premises from additional tax. He also took us through definition of business premises as contained in rule 1. He further contended that rule 3 did not abrogate exemption granted to business premises but only laid down procedure for determining value of share of partner in firm relating to urban assets other than business premises. 11. On behalf of department, it was submitted that rule 3 of laid down method for valuing interest of partner in all assets including business premises and that it was independent rule overruling other provisions. According to learned departmental representative, therefore, rule 3 had been correctly followed by Commissioner in rejecting assessee's claim. 12. We have carefully considered submissions placed before us. In our opinion, there is considerable force in submission placed on behalf of assessee. We will quote below relevant portions of Part I of Schedule to Act: "(2) In addition, in case of every individual and Hindu undivided family, where net wealth individual or Hindu undivided family includes value of any asset, being building or land (other than business premises) or any right in such building or land, situated in urban area (such asset being hereafter in this Part referred to as urban asset). Paragraph B Rule 1, In this Part - (i) 'business premises' means any building or land or part of such building or land, or any right in building or land or part thereof, owned by assessee and used throughout previous year for purpose of his business or profession, and includes any building used for purpose of residence of persons employed in business or any building used for welfare of such persons as hospital, creche, school, canteen, library, recreational centre, shelter, rest-room or lunch-room, but does not include any premises in nature of guest house; ** ** ** Rule 3. Where net wealth of assessee includes value of his interest as partner in firm or as member of association of persons and assets of such firm or association include any urban assets, then notwithstanding anything contained in Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), or in any other law for time being in force, interest of assessee in such firm or association, to extent specified in Explanation below shall be deemed to be urban asset and provisions of item (2) of paragraph shall apply accordingly. Explanation: extent of interest of assessee in firm or association deemed to be urban asset as aforesaid shall be sum which bears to value of whole of interest of assessee in firm or association same proportion which net value of urban assets of firm or association (determined under rule 2 as if they were urban assets belonging to individual or Hindu undivided family) bears to net wealth of firm or, as case may be, association, computed as if such firm or association, were individual." Our reading of above provisions goes to show that Legislature had granted exemption to business premises from additional wealth-tax by excluding them from definition of 'urban assets'. Rule 1 then defined 'business premises'. Rule 3 then laid down procedure for valuing interest of partner in firm or member of AOP in urban assets. Rule 3 refers to 'urbans assets'. 'Urban assets' have already been taken to be assets other than business premises. Rule 3, therefore, cannot refer to business premises. Even otherwise, there appears to be no logic in withdrawing exemption from additional wealth-tax on business premises only in case of partner in firm or member of AOP while at same time maintaining such exemption in case of other assessees. That being position, we hold that additional wealth- tax cannot be charged on business premises even if they might be held by firms in which assessee is partner. 13. That being position, properties belonging to New Cawnpore Flour Mills and Nagarmal & Co. will have to be excluded from charge of additional tax. If they are excluded, then there remains only Birhana Road property of assessee whose valuation has been taken at Rs. 5 lakhs. That too is subject to exemption under section 5(1) (iv) of Act to extent of Rs. 1 lakh. In any case, additional wealth-tax is not chargeable when value of urban assets does not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs. assessee is, therefore, not chargeable to any additional wealth-tax. It cannot, therefore, be sad that there is any error in order of WTO prejudicial to interests of revenue. We, therefore, set aside order of Commissioner passed under section 25(2) and restore that of WTO. 14. In view we have taken, assessee's appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) will survive. We, therefore, set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) and direct him to deal with assessee's appeal on merits. 15. In results, both appeals are allowed. *** RAMA SHANKER GUPTA v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER