GOSWAMI, J. : This matter has come to us on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Calcutta under Sec. 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessment years concerned in this reference are 1957-58. 1958-59. 1959-60 and 1960-61 (2) Briefly the facts are that the assessee's residence is situated at a place known as Makum at a distance of less than five miles from the Tinsukia Municipal town limit, but more than five miles from the central point of the Tinsukia Municipality. It is admitted that Makum is a place with a population not exceeding 10,000 and the Tinksukia Municipality has a population exceeding 10,000. The only controversy is whether the assessee's house is situated at a distance of more than five miles from the area of the Tinsukia Municipality. The Wealth-tax Officer, who made the original order of assess­ment, refused to grant the exemption on the ground that the assessee's residence was less than five miles from the limits of the Tinsukia town. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Com­missioner set aside the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and allowed the exemption holding that the assessee's residence was more than five miles from the central point of the Municipality. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also confirm­ed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commis­sioner and it held that when a place is said to be at a particular distance from a certain town the distance is usually reckoned from a central point in that town. On this view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the exemption, and hence this reference by the Tribunal at the instance of the Department on the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circum­stances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's dwelling house was exempted from wealth-tax under Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 as it was situat­ed at a distance of more than five miles from a central point of the Municipality whose population exceeded ten thousand?" (3) The answer to the question will depend) upon the interpretation of Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before its amendment in 1964. Section 5 (1) (iv) as it stood before the amend­ment is as follows: "Section 5. Section 5 (1) (iv) as it stood before the amend­ment is as follows: "Section 5. Exemptions in respect of cer­tain assets: (1) Wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee- (iv) one house belonging to the assessee exclusively used by him for residential purposes and situate in any place with a population not exceeding ten thousand and which is more than five miles distant from any area for which there is a municipality the population whereof ex­ceeds ten thousand. This provision indicates that during the relevant time, a residential house within the Municipal area was not under any exemption. A residential house in order to attract the exemption clause will have to be firstly in a place where the population does not exceed ten thousand, and secondly, that it must be situated at a distance of more than five miles from the municipal area, and thirdly, that the municipality from which the distance is calculated must have a population exceeding ten thousand. As noted above, there is no controversy regarding the population clauses. The only point that requires to be determined is whether the residence of the assessee is at a distance of more than five miles from the municipal area. This at once brings us to the wording of the pro­viso (iv) to Section 5 (1) of the Act. (4) Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Coun­sel for the Department, draws our attention to Section 9 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Relying on this section, he submits that the Wealth-tax Officer's order calculating the dis­tance of the residence of the assessee from the limits of the area demarcated under Section 9, is it perfectly valid order. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, which is confirmed by the Tribunal, is the only legal and reasonable order which could be passed under Sec. 5 (1) (iv) of the Act. Apart from relying on the distance shown in the Motoring Guide of the Automobile Association, which was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal, he draws our attention to Supplementary Rule 32 made by the Governor-General-in-Council under the Fundamental Rules. Apart from relying on the distance shown in the Motoring Guide of the Automobile Association, which was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal, he draws our attention to Supplementary Rule 32 made by the Governor-General-in-Council under the Fundamental Rules. This rule may be quoted: "S.R. 32 The point in any station at which a journey is held to commence or end is The chief public office or such other point as may be fixed for the purpose by a competent authority. Note.-A journey on transfer begins and ends at the actual residence of the Government servant concerned. It also appears that for the purpose of this rule, the Government of India's orders are that the principal post office in any station should be considered as the chief public office and consequently as the fixed point, in respect of the commencement and end of the journeys of all officers of the Indian Posts and Tele­graphs Department. A perusal of this rule would clearly show that for the purposes of traveling allowances, a provision has been specifically made under this rule to indicate the point in any station from which the calcu­lation has to be made. There is, therefore, no difficulty when such a provision has been made under the rule to make the necessary calcula­tion, or to determine the place from where the journey commences and where it ends. The position under the Wealth-tax Act is, however, different. No rule has been point «d out to us specifically mentioning that the distance of the assessee's residence from the nearest municipal area is to be calculated from a particular point in the municipality or for the matter of that, from the central point, as has been held by the Tribunal. That being the position, we are left with the clause (iv) of Section 5 (1) as it is and we have got to see whether such an interpretation is possible on the terms of the section. The General Clauses Act, 1897, also does not come to our assistance in this respect, as Section 11 therein only provides for measurement of distances in a straight line on a horizontal plane but has not mentioned any particular point from which the distance has got to be measured. The General Clauses Act, 1897, also does not come to our assistance in this respect, as Section 11 therein only provides for measurement of distances in a straight line on a horizontal plane but has not mentioned any particular point from which the distance has got to be measured. It is clear that whenever a distance has got to be measured from one point to another, it is abso­lutely necessary to know the two points, namely, the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quern. Reading Section 5 (1) (iv), there can be no doubt about the terminus ad quein, which is the residence of the assessee. What is then the terminus a quo, namely, the start­ing point? The words " from any area" for which there is a municipality must be given its proper meaning. The area of a munici­pality is clearly demarcated under the provi­sions of the various Municipal Acts in different States. To take for instance the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Section 4 is as follows: - "4. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette and by such other means as it may determine, declare its intention- (a) to constitute any town together with or exclusive of any railway station, village, building or land contiguous to any such town, a municipality under this Act; (b) to include within a municipality any local areas contiguous to the same; (c) to exclude from a municipality any local area comprised therein; or (d) to withdraw the whole area comprised in any municipality from the operation of this Act: Provided that no municipality under (his Act shall include any military cantonment or part of a military cantonment. (2) Every notification published under sub-section (1) shall define the limits ol the local area to which it '-elates Section ~ (2) of the Assam Municipal Act may be noticed: "5. (1)...................... (2) When sixty days from the date of the publication of the notification have expired, and after considering any objection which may be submitted, the State Government by notifi­cation, - - (a) constitute the local area or any speci­fied part thereof to be a municipality under this Act, or (b) include the local area or any part thereof in the municipality or exclude it there­from, or (c) withdraw the whole area comprised in the municipality from the operation of this Act. as the case may be.' Section 9 of the Assam Municipal Act may also be noticed in this connection: "9. Every Municipal Board already exist­ing and every municipality newly constituted under this Act and every municipality whose local limits are altered, shall cause to be erect­ed and set up and thereafter maintain substan­tial boundary marks defining the limits or the altered limits of the area subject to its autho­rity, as set out in any notification published under this Act." It is thus clear from the above provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, that the area of the municipality is statutory determined and demarcated in accordance with the provisions of the law. As noted above. Section 9 pro­vides for erection and maintenance of boundary marks. The limits of the area of the municipality are well defined and there can be no doubt or vagueness about the area. Once a particular distance is to be determined, the two termini, as noted above, have got to be clearly known. The limit of the municipality will cover the entire area of the municipality. There is nothing in Section 5 (t) (iv) of the Act to warrant the interpretation that the limit from which the distance exceeding five miles has to be determined, must be from the central point of the municipality. Mr. Choudhury argues that there is no warrant either for interpreting the section to mean only the limits of the municipality. This argument, however, is not tenable. The section clearly postulates that exemption is allowed in respect of a house situated in a place with a population riot exceeding ten thousand and which house is more that five miles distant from the municipal area with a population exceeding ten thousand. Shorn of me unnecessary details for our pur­pose, in brief the house must be at a distance of more than five miles from the municipal area. This distance cannot be determined until the last limit of the municipality is taken into account. The word 'area' is significant. This word also appears in the provisions of the municipal law in this behalf. We are not impressed by the fact that the Motoring Guide has given the distance be­tween Tinsukia and Makum as 51/2 miles or that under the Supplementary Rules, traveling allowance has been allowed to be determines from a central point as notified by the Govern­ment. This word also appears in the provisions of the municipal law in this behalf. We are not impressed by the fact that the Motoring Guide has given the distance be­tween Tinsukia and Makum as 51/2 miles or that under the Supplementary Rules, traveling allowance has been allowed to be determines from a central point as notified by the Govern­ment. The distance given in the Motoring Guide cannot be a safe criterion in interpreting the provisions of Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Act, nor the Supplementary Rules give any guide in the matter. Those rules will have to be understood in relation to the subject-matter and the purposes for which those rules have been made. We are, therefore, unable to hold that we can in law rely on the usual practice of taking the distance from the central point in a town to be a proper criterion in law in measuring the distance under Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Act. That being the position, the distance of the assessee's residence has to be measured from the limit of the municipal area and not from the central point of that area. The word "from" is sufficiently exclusive to exclude the entire area of the municipality in measuring the distance from the limit thereof to the residence of the assessee. In this context we may also notice that some curious result will follow if the central point in a municipal area is taken to be the point from which the distance has to be measured in absence of a clear direction in that behalf. If a municipal area is sufficiently long from east to west and from north to south is very narrow, in that case if the central point is taken as the criterion for measuring the distance, then an assessee's house on the east and west of the municipality will be exempted even though perhaps it is close to the border of the municipality whereas an assessee on the north and south of the municipality, who is at the same distance from the border, will not be so exempted, because the area of the munici­pality m breadth is narrow, while in length it is not so. If, however, five miles is calculated from the limits, there will be only one equal standard for all. If, however, five miles is calculated from the limits, there will be only one equal standard for all. Whoever is at a distance of more than live miles of the border-east, west, north and south- will be exempted from the assessment. It may be mentioned here that no authorities could be cited at the Bar regarding interpretation of the above provision under the Wealth-tax Act and the matter appears to be one of first impression. We are, however, absolutely satisfied that under Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, the distance of the assessee's house has to be measured from the limit of the municipality and not from the cen­tral point in the town. We have, therefore, no hesitation in answering the question in the negative and holding that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee's dwell­ing house was exempted from wealth-tax under Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. (5) The Reference is answered accordingly, but we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in negative.