Judgment :- SETHURAMAN J. In this petition under s. 27(3) of the W.T. Act, the CWT has asked for reference of the following two questions "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount deposited in a branch of the Indian Bank located in Colombo is a deposit held in a bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, applies?" * The assessee, an individual, in submitting wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1975-76, claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(xxvi) of the W.T. Act in respect of a deposit of Rs. 13, 500 made with the Indian Bank at its Colombo branch. The WTO rejected this for exemption. But, on appeals, the AAC and the Tribunal have granted the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxvi). The CWT, not being satisfied with the conclusion of the Tribunal, has filed this petition, after failing in the reference application before the Tribunal Section 5(1)(xxvi) of the W.T. Act, in so far as it is material, runs as follows "5. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A) 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-- (xxvi) any deposits with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (X of 1949), applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act) ........" * The only question for consideration is whether the deposit held by the assesee in the Colombo branch of the Indian Bank is a deposit with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act of 1949 appliesThe definition of a banking company in s. 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act (Act X of 1949) reads as follows "' Banking company ' means any company which transacts the business of banking in India." * Indian Bank admittedly transacts business in India and, therefore, is a "banking company" as defined in the Banking Regulation Act and, therefore, will come within the scope of s. 5(1)(xxvi) of the W.T. Act, 1957, and there is no dispute about this. However, what the learned counsel for the department contends is that in this particular case the deposit has been made with the branch of the bank at Colombo, that is, outside India, and, therefore, s. 5(1)(xxvi) of the W.T. Act, will not apply. We are unable to agree with this contention, because s. 5(1)(xxvi) does not deal with the place of the deposit, but merely refers to a deposit with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the deposit by the assessee with the Colombo branch of the Indian Bank will fall within the scope of s. 5(1)(xxvi) of the W.T. Act, 1957. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error. The answer to the question is patent and, in that sense, no question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the TribunalThe petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.