In all these appeals grounds raised are common. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by combined order for sake of convenience. Grounds in case of WTA No. 309(Del) of 1985 which reflect grounds in other appeals also read as under; "1. That ld. WTO and ld. AAC of Wealth Tax have erred in law and in not allowing exemption under s. 5(1)(iv), while computing interest of assessee in partnership firms M/s Jivan Corporation, M/s Roop Industries and M/s Khanna Poultry Farm as required by s. 4(1)(b) of WT Act, 1957 in accordance with r. 2D(9) of WT Rules, 1957. That it is prayed that justice be done to appellant and necessary relief on above ground be please ordered to be allowed." short controversy raised before us was whether, while computing interest of partner in firm, exemption clauses should be given effect to in computing net wealth of firm and then divide it amongst partners in prescribed manner or whether net wealth of firm should first be ascertained and proportionate share of partners should be taken in their respective assessments and effect to various exemption clauses should b e given in individual assessment of partners. assessee's case is that effect to various exemption clauses, particularly cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 should be given in case of firm while working out its net wealth in terms of r. 2 of WT Rules, 1957 and share of partner in such net wealth should be included in his wealth. Department's case, on other hand, is that individual partners alone are assessees under s. 3 of WT Act, 1957 and therefore, effect to various exemption clauses can be given in their hands only because said exemption clauses are available only to assessees and not to any other entity. firm is not taxable entity and assessee. Under WT Act, 1957 therefore exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) cannot be given in hands of firm. Besides, it is pointed out that maximum amount of relief admissible under s. 5(1)(iv) has already been granted in case of all assessee-appellants and so more relief than admissible under s. 5(1)(iv) cannot be given to them through computation of their interest in firm's net wealth. On behalf of assessees reliance is placed on following decisions: CWT vs. Vasantha (1973) 87 ITR 17 (Mad), Purushothamdas Gocooldas & Ors. vs. CWT 1976 CTR (Mad) 361: (1976) 104 ITR 608 (Mad) and CWT vs. Narendra Ranjalker (1981) 129 ITR 203 (AP). Besides order of Tribunal Calcutta Bench 'C' in case of Premnarain Parveenkumar vs. WTO, WTA Nos. 108 to 110 (Cal) of 1983, 1985 Taxation 76(6)-21 copy of which has been placed on record and is also cited in support of above reasonings. Reference is also made to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers & Anr. vs. WTO (1984) 39 CTR (SC) 47: (1984) 145 ITR 485 (SC) and Sunil Sidharthabhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172: (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) in support of proposition that firm has independent status with regard to assets owned by it vis-a-vis its partners and wealth of firm cannot be regarded as wealth of partners. In support of departmental stand reliance was placed on following decisions CWT vs. M/s Christine Cardoza (1978) 114 ITR 532 (Kar), CWT vs. I. Butchi Krishna 1977 CTR (Ori) 299: (1979) 119 ITR 8 (Ori), Narsibhai Patel vs. CWT (1981) 20 CTR (MP) 43: (1981) 127 ITR 633 (MP), CWT vs. Sri Naurangrai Agarwalla (1985) 155 ITR 752 (Cal) and CWT vs. Mira Mehta (1986) 52 CTR (Cal) 408: (1985) 155 ITR 765 (Cal). We have carefully gone through facts of case and rival submissions. In WTA Nos. 108 to 110/Cal/1983 this is what Tribunal had stated in paragraphs 7 to 12 thereof: "7. We have given careful consideration to rival submissions. valuation of share of partner in firm is governed by statute. In terms of cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of Act, value of interest of partner in firm has to be determined in prescribed manner. Sub-s. (2) of s. 4 stipulates that: 'In making any rules with reference to valuation of interest referred to in cl. (b) of sub-s. (1), Board shall have regard to law for time being in force relating to manner in which accounts are to be settled between partners of firm . . . on dissolution of firm . . .' provisions pertaining to settlement of accounts amongst Partners are contained in s. 48 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. said section reads as follows: "48. Mode of settlement of accounts between partners In settling accounts of firm after dissolution, following rules, shall, subject to agreement by partners, be observed- (a) Losses, including deficiencies of capital, shall be paid first out of profits, next out of capital, and, lastly, if necessary, by partners individually in proportions in which they were entitled to share profits. (b) assets of firm, including any sums contributed by partners to make up deficiencies of capital, shall be applied in following manner and order (i) in paying debts of firm to third parties, (ii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him from firm for advances as distinguished from capital, (iii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him in account of capital and, (iv) residue, if any, shall be divided among partners in proportions of which they were entitled to share profits." above section is modelled on pattern of s. 44 of Partnership Act, 1890, of United Kingdom. Lindley on Partnership has explained above scheme of settling of accounts amongst partners in following words: "It follows from rules contained in above section that if assets are not sufficient to pay debts and liabilities to non-partners, partners must treat difference as loss and make it up by contributions inter se. If assets are more than sufficient to pay debts and liabilities of partnership to non-partners, but are not sufficient to repay partners, their respective advances, amount of unpaid advances ought to be treated as loss, to be met like other losses. In such case advances ought to be treated as debt of firm, but payable to one of partners instead of to stranger. If, after paying all debts and liabilities of firm and advances of partners, there is still surplus, but not sufficient to pay each partner his capital, balances of capitals remaining unpaid must be treated as so many losses to be met like other losses." above scheme as contained in s. 48 of Partnership Act was also considered by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Addanki Narayanappa vs. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. Their Lordships explained scheme of s. 48 in following terms: "From perusal of these provisions it would be abundantly clear that whatever may be character of property which is brought in by partners when partnership is formed or which may be acquired in course of business of partnership it becomes property of firm and what partner is entitled to his share of profits, if any, accruing to partnership from realisation of property, and upon dissolution of partnership to share in money representing value of property. No doubt, since firm has no legal existence, partnership property will vest in all partners and in that sense every partner has interest in property of partnership. During subsistence of partnership, however, no partner can deal with any portion of property at his own. Nor can he assign his interest in specific item of partnership property to any one. His right is to obtain such profits, if any, as fall to his share from time to time and upon dissolution of firm to share in assets of firm which in cl. (a) and sub-cls. (i), (ii) and (iii) of cl. (b) of s. 48...." (Page 1303) Their Lordship approvingly quoted following extracts from Lindley of Partnership, 12th edn. at page 375: "What is meant by share of partnership assets after they have been all realised and converted into money, and all partnership debts and liabilities have been paid and discharged. This it is, and this only which on death of partner passes to his representatives or to legatee of his share and which on his bankruptcy passes to his trustee...." (p. 1303) It is above scheme of settlement of accounts between partners, which has been directed by sub-s. (2) of s. 4 to be incorporated in rules to be made in terms of cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 aforesaid, Rule 2 of WT Rules, 1957 '(the Rules)' is rule pertaining to subject-matter. Sub-r. (1) of said rule reads, inter-alia, as follows: "The value of interest of person in firm of which he is partner shall be determined in manner provided herein. net wealth of firm on valuation date shall first be determined. portion of net wealth of firm...or is equal to amount of its capital shall be allocated amongst partners...in proportion in which capital has been contributed by them. residue of net wealth of firm...shall be allocated amongst partners....in accordance with agreement of partnership for distribution of assets in event of dissolution of firm or, in absence of such agreement, in absence of such agreement, in proportion, in which partners...are entitled to share profits. sum total of amounts so allocated to partner...shall be treated as value of interest of that partner in firm." (Emphasis supplied) combined reading of aforesaid provision indicates that share of partner in firm has to be determined more or less on same principles as are contained in s. 48 even though on valuation date firm does not stands dissolved. share of partner under s. 48 does not extend to any particular asset of firm as such, but to excess of value of all assets over all liabilities of firm. partner can claim his share only in such excess. If there be no excess, he will have no share in firm even though assets of firm may be numerous. assets, no doubt, belong to all partners jointly, but no individual asset of firm, whether it be shares or property, would belong to partner individually. This being so, contention of assessee that shares belonged to him and that, therefore, he should be allowed exemption in respect thereto under s. 5 (1) (iv) cannot be sustained. What belongs to partners is not pro rata share in shares of various companies owned by firm, but pro rata share in excess of assets over liabilities. In present case we have noted that assets in all years far exceed capital of partners. No individual asset can be said to be belonging to any partner for if that were so, partners would be asking for much more than what they are entitled to after paying off their liabilities of firm. In law it is not possible to own asset without discharging liabilities. To say, therefore that assets of firm belong to individual partner, pro rata would be against law. All of them belong to all partners jointly but none of them belongs to individual partner individually. What belongs to individual partner in his pro rata share in excess of all assets over liabilities and not pro rata share in each individual asset. At same time, it would not be correct to say that relief under s. 5(1)(iv) cannot be granted to partner in respect of exempted assets. What all partners are entitled in their individual capacities would he eligible to them with regard to assets owned by them jointly and not individually. law on this point was well brought out by their Lordships of Hon'ble Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Nand Lal Jalan (1980) 122 ITR 781 (Pat), when they made following observations explaining this aspect of law: 'Now, therefore, keeping in view of above discussions, it cannot be said that even though during subsistence of partnership, assets thrown into partnership by partners get merged together and lose their identity, yet all same, assets as whole do belong to partners. In computing net wealth of firm, in by reference to r. 2 of Wealth-tax Rules if partner qualified for any of exemptions must be taken into consideration for determining net wealth of firm terms of said rule....' (p. 788) In view of above law, we hold that while computing net wealth of firm exemption available to all partners in terms of s. 5(1)(xxiiii) ought to be allowed while computing net wealth of firm. shares may not belong to individual partner, but they do belong to all partners and, therefore, while computing net wealth of firm, due recognition of this joint ownership has to be allowed. WTO was, therefore, wrong in not granting exemption in respect of shares while computing net wealth of firm. He should now recomputed net wealth of firm after deducting exemption under s. 5 (xxiii), r/w s. 5(1A) from net wealth of firm. proportionate share of partner will be computed with reference to such net wealth and not with reference to net worth of firm as was done by WTO." proper inference to be drawn from above discussion would be to hold that exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) is available only to assessee- partners, not to firm, because firm is not assessee. It is one of modes of giving due relief under s. 5(1)(iv) to partners, with regard to assets jointly owned by them as partners and not by anyone of them, that relief in question has to be taken into account, while computing net wealth of firm as explained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of aforesaid order. If, however, it could be shown, as is position, in present case, that maximum exemption available under s. 5(1)(iv) his already been granted to Partners, it would in our opinion, be going against specific provision of law to direct that exemption higher than maximum limit be granted to assessee through instrumentality of firm. Therefore, in case where maximum benefit has already been availed of by partner under s. 5(1)(iv), it would not be correct to grant further relief to him in violation of statute, purportedly in terms of r. 2, no rule can be interpreted to override specific provision of statute to give effect to which said rule is made. In this view of matter, we are unable to interfere with orders of ld. AAC in present case. In result, appeals stand dismissed. *** SAT NARAIN KHANNA v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER