Two disputes are involved in this appeal. first relates to assessee's claim for exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act. assessee is owner of shop and claimed exemption for it under s. 5(1)(iv). This exemption has been denied to her on ground that exemption applies only to house. AAC referred to certain judicial decisions and has given opinion that term house had not been defined in WT Act and it should, therefore, be undersood in same sense as its ordinary meaning would apply. This has been challenged. After considering all facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that this exemption should be allowed to assessee. At one stage, there was limitation in s. 5(1)(iv) itself that house or part of house belonging to assessee should be used for his residence. This limitation has now been done away. Every kind of house is exempt. Therefore, there is no reason why ware-house or store house should not be exempt. If they can be, why not shop. Apart from this, we had occasion to come across cl. (vc) of s. 5(1) in WT Act, according to which one or more dwelling unit and land appurtenant thereto belong to assessee when construction of such dwelling unit or units was begun on or after 1st April, 1976 is exempt for five years from date of its completion. This means that this exemption is available to assessee in addition to main exemption under cl. (iv). When legislature has used words house, building, dwelling unit mean for residence in same section in different clauses, it implies that each word had its own significance because legislature in clause (ivc) deals with dwelling units use solely for purpose of residence. Clause (iv) refers to one building or group of buildings owned by cultivator or receiver of land of revenue out of agricultural land comprised in any plantation. Clause (ivb) itself refers to one house or part of house, but there was no other limitation. Since position is not free from doubt, we propose to give benefit of this interpretation to assessee and accept ground. other dispute relates to valuation of jewellery and utensils. value was computed at Rs. 91,254 and Rs. 1,24,260 by WTO, On appeal, AAC granted 15 per cent deduction in respect of silver utensils which resulted in relief of Rs. 18,640. assessee is still agitated and has challenged it in her second ground. She returned it at Rs. 84,999 which was value accepted in year 1976-77. same value appears to be taken in 1977-78 and 1978-79. I t appears that nobody applied his mind to increase in value of these articles due to rise in consumer price index. No fresh facts and figures about rates of metals of which ornaments and utensils are made were submitted before us. But it is stated that estimate by WTO was very high. Keeping in view past history, we further reduce value by 10 per cent of estimate made by ITO. appeal is partly allowed in these terms. *** SMT. SANTO BAI v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER