JUDGMENT
1. According to the learned Counsel the premises would not fall within the meaning of assets under Section 2(ea) of the WT Act, 1957. Learned Counsel relied on the following:
any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him.
2. It has come on record that the said premises have been given on leave and licence by the appellant to Citibank. It is sought to be contended that from the terms and conditions under for the purpose of occupation Citibank had to take permission of the appellant herein. The requirement to exclude the house from the definition of assets is the appellant occupies the premises for the purpose of business carried on by them. Admittedly in respect of the said premises the appellant is not occupying the premises for any business or profession carried on by them. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion which it arrived at.
3. Alternatively it is submitted that considering the provisions of Section 4(8)(b) it will be an asset in the hands of Citibank and cannot be included in the net wealth of the appellant herein. The relevant portion of Section 4(8)(b) reads as under:
A person:
(b) who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding one year) in or with respect to any building or part thereof by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in Clause (f) of Section 269UA of the IT Act.
4. It is the case of the appellant themselves that what they have created is a licence. Considering that it is a licence no right would be created in Citibank. The only right they have is permissive occupation. Under these circumstances the second contention as raised also would not arise. The learned Tribunal has dealt with that issue.
5. Considering the above the question of law as raised would not arise. Consequently appeal dismissed.