This is bunch of five appeals filed by revenue against orders dated 31-10-2003 of CWT(A), Jalandhar, for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively. Since issue involved in all appeals is common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. 2. In these appeals, revenue has raised following two identical grounds. same are as under: "1. On facts and in circumstances of case, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that assessee rightly claimed deduction under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act in respect of land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals and 12 marlas. 2. learned CIT (Appeals) has not appreciated fact that land in question was located outside boundary wall of residential house of assessee as per sketch plan furnished by him before Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and as such it cannot be termed as land appurtenant to residential house." 2a. facts common to all these grounds of appeal are that in response t o notices issued under section17 of Wealth-tax Act, assessee filed returns of wealth for above-mentioned assessment years. In returns of wealth filed, assessee had claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv), now 5(1)(vi) in respect of Bungalow at Village Khurla Kingra along with land appurtenant thereto. assessee also submitted note along with returns stating that land at Village Khurla Kingra where assessee lived was allotted to assessee's father and same measured 17 acres and 6 kanals. After death of assessee's father, land was divided between assessee and his brother. Thus, assessee's HUF got land measuring 8 acres and 7 kanals. assessee built residential house along with garden. On 2-9-1993, his family members filed suit for their share in land. suit was decreed by order dated February 1994. assessee got residential house along with part of garden as his share. land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals and 12 marlas was stated to be part of residential house and, therefore, exemption was claimed under section 5(1)(vi). During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that entire ancestral land of HUF was partitioned in February 1994 was sold for sum of Rs. 1,64,47,750. Later on land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas, which came to assessee's share, was also sold for consideration of Rs. 41,76,271. On being asked assessee furnished site plan of residential premises and Assessing Officer found that land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas owned by assessee was located outside boundary wall of residential house and as such it could not be termed as land appurtenant to residential house. Assessing Officer also observed that as per site plan, area within boundary wall comprised of residential house, servant quarters, sheds, guard rooms, lawn and garden having total area of 9 kanals 10 marlas. No portion of land which was appurtenant to residential house and situated within boundary wall had been sold. Assessing Officer, therefore, observed that land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas which was marked and shown outside boundary wall of residential house in site plan was not part of land appurtenant to residential house. He also observed that land in question was urban land liable to be included in wealth of assessee. Thus, WTO estimated value of land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas for various assessment years and included same in wealth-tax assessments completed for these assessment years. 3. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeals before CWT(A). It was submitted before CWT(A) that land in question was part and parcel of residential house. It was submitted that on portion of land, assessee constructed residential house in 1973 and also carried on forming activities and on account of decree in favour of sons of assessee, land was divided in four portions. assessee became owner of house and land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas. It was also submitted that sketch plan of residential house was prepared in year 2002 and this sketch plan was submitted before Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that prior to that it was only piece of land having boundary wall and gate to approach this land for safety. It was submitted that there was no evidence to show that land in question was not appurtenant to house and same was used by assessee for any other purposes. It was submitted that land was enjoyed by assessee for himself and, therefore, it was claimed that value of land along with house was exempt under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) v. CWT [2002] 257 ITR 718, decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of WTO v. N.N. Atal [1998] 64 ITD 348, in support of contention that if person had acquired house for being used as residential house and that house happened to have large open space around it for house as godown or play area or other purposes, same would qualify for exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act, as long as house w s used solely for residence. It was also submitted that assessee had exclusive right over entire land and, therefore, same was exempt. Accepting contentions of assessee, ld. CWT(A) held that land owned by assessee was appurtenant to house and, therefore, same was entitled to exemption. findings recorded by CWT(A) in para 1.5 for assessment year 1996-97 are as under: "1.5. I have considered submissions from both sides and find that though claim of residential house being exempt under section 5(vi) of Wealth-tax Act have been accepted by Assessing Officer yet same exemption was held not eligible for appurtenant land, sold by appellant on basis as mentioned in assessment order whereas it was consistently claimed by appellant that residential house with land was one unit and land which was sold was appurtenant to residential house. case of Assessing Officer is based on site plan that land in question was located outside boundary wall of residential house whereas appellant claimed it as one piece of land, having furnished sketch plan with boundary wall which was prepared and filed as desired by Assessing Officer and vide Court decree residential house and 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas of land was decreed in favour of appellant. It is not established by any independent enquiry than material made available by appellant as per requirement of Assessing Officer that land in question was outside boundary wall of house. There is no finding that land was used by appellant for any other purposes and there being no agricultural income or any other income from said land as per return of appellant, natural conclusion is that land appurtenant to house was enjoyed by appellant exclusively for residential purpose. capital gain on sale of land was surrendered for taxation and proceedings under wealth tax were initiated by Assessing Officer to bring to tax value of said land around residential house and that too within urban limits but without any independent material or enquiries to support his finding, Assessing Officer based its case on merely site plan. statute has not laid down any limit as to what should be size of house or extent or open space or garden, which as person should have for house in which he lives. It has been judicially held that open area is necessary for quite and peaceful and convenient enjoyment of property and benefit of section 7(4) has to be extended to open land, which is appurtenant to house property. This view has been taken by Hon'ble ITAT Madras Bench in case reported at [1980] 10 TTJ (Madras) 201, by Hon'ble Indore Bench in case reported at [1985] Tax 76(6)57 and by Hon'ble Allahabad Bench vide [1987] 20 ITD 310. There is no finding that land was not appurtenant to house and was used for any other purposes and in this respect I find that case of appellant gets covered by decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) wherein it was held that open space around house was used by assessee in that case for self and benefit of open space was confined to residents of house and said open space represented part of house eligible for exemption under section 5(vi) o f Wealth-tax Act. Same are facts in case of appellant as land was used for self/for benefit of residents of house thus it remains part of house. case of appellant also gets supported by decision of Hon'ble Jaipur ITAT Bench (supra). Therefore, appellant rightly claimed exemption under section 5(vi) of Wealth-tax Act and addition of Rs. 52,15,700 made by Assessing Officer in view of said exemption cannot be sustained and is deleted. I also find merits in contentions of appellant that value was not properly determined by Assessing Officer as by adopting same method, its valuation would have been much less than determined by Assessing Officer but since main issue is decided in favour of appellant, valuation issue becomes redundant." 4. This order was followed for all other assessment years. Revenue is aggrieved by order of CWT(A). Hence these appeals before us. 5. Ld. DR, Sh. P.S. Sachdev submitted that Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. Zaibunnisa Begam [1985] 151 ITR 320 Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. Zaibunnisa Begam [1985] 151 ITR 320 had occasion to consider meaning of "Land appurtenant" to house for purpose of considering exemption from capital gain. He submitted that tests laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court are equally relevant for deciding whether land under consideration could be considered forming part of house for purpose of allowing exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act. He submitted that first test is if building together with land was treated as indivisible unit and enjoyed as such by persons occupying building, it is indication that entire extent of land is appurtenant to building. He submitted that in present case, assessee himself submited site plan which indicated that there was boundary wall to building. present land fell outside boundary wall. Drawing our attention to para 3 of assessment order, Ld. DR submitted that as per site plan submitted by assessee, area within boundary wall consisted of residential house, servant quarters, sheds, guard rooms, lawn and garden, etc., having total area of 9 kanals 10 marlas. He submitted that this area measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas falling within boundary wall was considered to be land appurtenant to house and was allowed exemption. He submitted extent of area owned by assessee forming part of residential house is not material provided it was part of residential house. He submitted that in this case, land in question was outside boundary wall and, therefore, same was not considered forming part of residential house. He submitted that Assessing Officer was fair enough to consider land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas within boundary wall having residential house, lawn and garden forming part of residential house and allowing exemption thereof. He further submitted that second test laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court was whether land contiguous to building could be put to independent user without causing any detriment to enjoyment of building as such. He submited that traditionally land was being used for agriculture. In fact, land outside boundary wall had been put to independent use. He further submitted that this is evident from fact that land outside boundary wall measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas was sold subsequently by assessee as independent unit. Thus, he submitted that land outside boundary wall did not form part of single unit of residential house, and, therefore, was not part of residential house. He particularly emphasized that as per Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, land used by occupants for commercial or agricultural purposes although forming part of land adjacent to building does not qualify to be treated as land appurtenant to building. He submitted that this test squarely applies to facts of present case as land outside boundary wall was being used for agricultural purposes and was also sold as independent unit. Therefore, same was not part of residential house. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) has erroneously relied on judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) (supra) and decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of N.N. Atal (supra) which are clearly distinguishable on facts. He submittd that only area falling within boundary wall measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas having residential house, lawn and garden along with servant quarters could be considered land appurtenant to house for which Assessing Officer had himself allowed exemption for same. He also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CWT v. Shmatilal Popatlal (HUF) [1997] 225 ITR 242 where action of CWT under section 25(2) of Wealth-tax Act was upheld by Gujarat High Court. Thus, he submitted that ld. CWT(A) was not justified in treating land in question in forming part of residential house and allowing exemption thereof. 6. Ld. AR, on other hand, heavily relied on order of CWT(A) and reiterated submisions made before authorities below. He submitted that ld. CWT(A) has duly noted facts of case on pages 2 & 3 in paragraphs 1.1 & 1.2 of impugned order for assessment year 1996-97. He submitted that assessee's father had received 17 acres of land in claim on partition. said land was divided between two brothers in which assessee got about 8 acres 7 kanals or his share. There was division among family members in 1993 and assessee got residential house along with land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas. His sons got only land. land in question was part of same house and one portion of same was sold in 1999. He submitted that land in question formed part of same residential premises as same had orchard grown thereon as part of residential bungalow. land was never used for agricultural purposes and no agricultural income from same had been shown by assessee. He submitted that CWT(A) had rightly relied on judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) (supra) where High Court has held that no limit on land appurtenant to residential house was prescribed under Wealth-tax Act for purpose of allowing exemption to residential house. He also submitted that Ld. CWT(A) rightly relied on decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of N.N. Atal (supra) because in this case, assessee had exclusive right over entire land. He also stated that land in question stood sold in 1999 and since it formed part of residential house, assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act. 7. We have heard both parties and carefully considered rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. We have also gone through orders of authorities below. only reason given by Assessing Officer for treating land in question as not part of reidential house is that there was boundary wall between residential house along with land and extended portion of land measuring 1 acre 7 kanals 12 marlas. From facts discussed above, it is obvious that land in question formed part of house and was adjacent to building. same was not located at distance. contention of assessee that land was not used for agricultural purposes and income therefrom had not shown as agricultural, has not been rebutted by Revenue. On contrary, contention of assessee that land in question has orchard grown on it and was part of residential house which was exclusively used by assessee remains unchallenged. No material has been brought on record that assessee had in fact used land in question for agricultural purposes and had earned agricultural income, which was disclosed in return of income. Once land was adjacent to residence and had orchard grown on it, same would continue be part of house even if there was boundary wall on same because no evidence or material is placed on record to show that land in question was used for any other purposes. In case of M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) (supra) relied upon by CWT(A) and assessee, it was held that test requires to be satisfied to attract proviso to section 7(4) are (i) that property must belong to assessee, and (ii) that it should be used exclusively for "residential purpose". In present case, assessee fulfilled two conditions. assessee was owner of property and was used for residential purposes. No enquiry has been made by Assessing Officer to establish that property in question was used for any purpose other than residential house. In fact, Assessing Officer has not even considered necessary to call for assessee and record his statement or to verify this fact and also to verify Revenue record to see whether land in question was used for any other purpose. In case of M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) (supra), Madras High Court has also held that Assessing Officer could not question size of house for purpose of considering case under section 7(4) of Wealth-tax Act. Even in case of N.N. Atal (supra) relied upon by CWT(A) and assessee, it was found that assessee had building along with open lawn which used to be earlier valued as appurtenant land and benefit was given under sub-section (4) of section 7. However, for subsequent assessment year, Assessing Officer allowed benefit only up to 600 sq. meters and rest treated as excess land. Tribunal observed that assessee had exclusive right over entire land. It was held that balance land was also appurtenant land and was eligible to benefit of section 7(4) of Wealth-tax Act. In case of CWT v. Mahal Chand Pandia [1996] 219 ITR 733, facts before Gauhati High Court were that house was partly used as residence and partly as godown. On these facts, Gauhati High Court held that entire house was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of Wealth-tax Act. In present case, Revenue has not even established that remaining land was used for purposes other than residential house. 7.1 Ld. DR has heavily relied on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Zaibunnisa Begum (supra) which was on issue of allowing exemption from capital gain. said judgment was not on issue of considering meaning of land appurtenant to house for purpose of allowing exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act. In fact, Hon'ble High Court has itself noted that meaning assigned to expression in Wealth-tax Act, Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act is not relevant for purpose of considering exemption from capital gains, more so, when revenue has not established that land in question was used for any other purpose than residential house. very fact that there was boundary wall and this portion of land was subsequently sold would not make any difference because for assessment years under consideration, land in question was being used only for residential purpose and same was also adjacent to residential house. other judgment relied upon by ld. DR is Shamatilal Popatlal (HUF's) case (supra) is again distinguishable on facts. issue related to exercise of revisionary powers by CWT(A) and not for purpose of considering property for purpose of allowing exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act. 7.2 In light of these facts and circumstanes of case and reasoning given by CWT(A) with which we agree, we are of opinion that CWT(A) was justified in allowing exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth-tax Act in respect of land in question as forming part of residential house. We confirm his orders and reject grounds of appeals of revenue for all assessment years. 8. In result, all appeals of Revenue are dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. KULDIP SINGH VIRK