P.J. GORADIA, A.M. common ground involved in all these four appeals is as under: "The ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that provisions of s. 7(4) of WT Act, are applicable to Shahibag Bungalow." For asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 one more common ground taken is as under: "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that provisions of s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act are applicable to Shahibag Bungalow." In this case, property consists of building admeasuring 176-83 Sq.metres, situated on plot of land admeasuring 2137 sq.yds. property is residential house consisting of rooms for residence of servants. property was valued by Departmental Valuation Officer on this basis of value of land plus scrap value of building. We are not concerned here with valuation of land. WTO while completing assessments originally for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 valued residential property on basis of provisions contained in s. 7(4) of Act. He rejected claim of assessee regarding valuation under R. 1BB of WT Rules on basis that on calculations property did not satisfy eligibility test contained in relevant rules. Nothing is clarified on this aspect but it appeared that probably same was on basis of excess open land. Subsequently, CWT invoked provisions contained in s. 25 of WT Act for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 holding that since servants were occupying residential rooms in property and assessee himself was not staying, provisions contained in s. 7(4) of WT Act did not apply. Besides, exemption under s. 5(1)(Iv) of Act if any should have been restricted of value of servants' room only and not extended to entire land. He, therefore, set aside orders for these two years and directed WTO to redecide issues. Therefore, for these two assessment years WTO passed orders under s. 16(3)/25(2) of WT Act and for latter two years he completed assessment under s. 16(3) of Act. In respect of assessment completed for asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 he allowed benefit of s. 5(1)(iv) of Act and for this purpose valuation was adopted at Rs. 88,317 for asst. yr. 1979-80 and therefore, gave reduction of same amount since it was below exemption limit provided in s. 5(1)(Iv) of Act. For asst. yr. 1980-81 valuation in respect of building required to be considered under s. 5(1)(iv) of Act exceeded amount of Rs. 1 lakh and therefore, exemption was restricted to Rs. 1 lakh only. In appeal, Commissioner(A) accepted claim of assessee under s. 5(1)(iv) of Act on basis of decision in case of Sulochana Narottam. After that in asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 WTO had allowed such exemption. He therefore, directed WTO to follow directions given by Commissioner(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad, in para 10 of order in case of Sulochana Narottam. In respect of issue regarding applicability of s. 7(4) of Act WTO was of view that property consisted only of residential house consisting of servant's rooms. According to him, it was only immovable house property owned by assessee and not residential house which is used by assessee for purpose of residence. servants rooms by themselves would not make property residential house. According to him, who were servants and to whom they served was also not clear. In any case, assessee was not using t h e property for his own residence. Therefore, s. 7(4) of Act was not applicable. Commissioner(A) considered factual aspects of case such as entire bungalow was earlier belonging to assessee and it was used by him and members of his family including servants' quarters which were used by servants. On partition of property portion of property remained with assessee and this portion of property consists of property under consideration. He then held that s. 7(4) of Act was applicable. Before us, ld. departmental representative submitted as under: (i) Considering language contained in s. 7(4) of Act especially words 'assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purposes' entity like HUF was not entitled to such benefit at all. If applicability of provisions was required to be extended to all entities then words 'used by him' would not find place in section. For this proposition support was drawn from language contained in s. 54 of WT Act regarding exemption in respect of capital gains when assessee was either individual or HUF and amendment of said section. Support was also drawn from concerned sub- clause in sub-s. 5(1) of Act. (ii) In any case, there was no exclusive use by assessee since only servants were using same. Reliance was placed on in case of CWT vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh (1972) 83 ITR 52 (Del). We have gone through orders passed by authorities below. We regard to examination under s. 5(1)(iv) of Act nothing is brought to our notice which would go against evidence considered by Commissioner(A) on basis of which order is passed. We are also not told as to whether any action is taken under s. 25 of Act in respect of exemption granted by WTO for asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81. We have also considered language contained in s. 5(1)(iv) of Act allows exclusion of one house or part of house belonging to assessee. We find no reason to interfere with order passed by Commissioner(A). Coming to issue regarding applicability of s. 7(4) of Act in effect issue has practical significance only for asst. yr. 1980-81 since value required to be considered under s. 5(1)(iv) of Act exceeds limit of Rs. 1 laksh. decision relied upon by Revenue in fact supports case of assessee. One of tests laid down in said decision was that user must be for purpose of residence and not for purpose of earning of income. In that case assessee had received rent in respect of part use of property and therefore, assessee lost. We wonder how decision was cited in support of stand taken by Revenue. Besides, no challenge is made to finding of Commissioner(A) that property was used by servants though WTO doubted whether persons occupying house were in fact servants of assessee. Therefore, we have to proceed on basis of that persons residing in servants rooms were servants of assessee. It is also admitted position that earlier entire property was property of bigger HUF but nothing is brought to our notice that before partition also Revenue had not accepted similar stand whether taken by assessee. It is fact that assessee had not used property for purpose other than residential purpose though of course of servants of family and it is as not established that assessee had made income out of letting of property. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with decision taken by Commissioner(A). Coming to challenge regarding applicability of s. 7(4) to entities other than individual, we find that nowhere this aspect has been considered nor was issue before authorities below. Apart from prayer for raising this additional ground we were not even informed that this was new issue altogether not considered by authorities below. In any case, we will deal with this matter. benefit of s. 7(4) is available in respect of house belonging to assessee and assessee includes HUF. use of word him' instead of 'it does not alter position. Sec. 7(4) of Act concerns valuation of property used for residence and as such machinery section to great extent. intention of legislature with regard to valuation of such properties is very much evident not only from this section but also from provisions contained in r. IBB of WT Rules which are specifically engaged for purpose of valuation in respect of residential properties. It would also be appreciated that assessee is given option to choose one house where more than one such houses belong to assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purpose. How can one occupy more residential houses if meaning sought to be given by ld. DR is accepted. This again throws light on interpretation required to be adopted. We find from order passed by WTO that this is only house property held by assessee and for this option is exercised. Considering all these aspects, we reject issue raised by departmental representative. In result, all appeals are dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. SHRENIK KASTURBHAI