R. K. Manisana, J.-In compliance with the direction given by this Court in Civil Rule Nos, 40 (M) and 41 (M) of 1979 relating to the Wealth tax assessment of Tarachand Agarwalla for the assessment years 1972-73, and 1973-74, the Tribunal drew up statement of case for referring the following question as framed by this Court: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper construction of section 2(m), section 4(1 )(b), section 5(1) (iv) of the W.T. Act, 1957 and Rule 2 of the W.T. Rules, 1957, the Tribunal was justified in holding the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that exemption of pro­portionate share of the interest in the building belonging to the firm should be allowed under section 5(1) (iv) in the hands of the assessee partner?" ( underlines are ours ) 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The assessee was a partner in a partnership firm. In computing net wealth of the assessee, the WTO included the value of assessee's interest in the firm of which he was a partner under Rule 2 of the WT Rules, 1957. The firm owned certain immovable properties. However, the value of assessee's interest in the firm was included as movable properties in the assessment of the assessee. On the appeal filed by the assessee, it was claimed that exemption under section 5(1) (iv) should have been allowed in respect of proportionate share of the assessee in the firm's house property. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention and directed the WTO to allow exemption, as provided under section 5(l)(iv) of the WT Act. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue has contended that the interest of a partner in a partnership assets comprising of movable as well as the immovable property should be treated as movable property. To support his contention the learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Addanki vs. Bfaaskara, AIR 1966 SC 1300 and another decision of the Madras High Court in Parasothamdas ?s CWT, (1976) 104 ITR 608. 4. To support his contention the learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Addanki vs. Bfaaskara, AIR 1966 SC 1300 and another decision of the Madras High Court in Parasothamdas ?s CWT, (1976) 104 ITR 608. 4. The question then is whether the interest of a partner in the partnership, assets comprising of movable .as well as immovable pro­perty .should be treated as movable property for the purpose of section 5(l)(iv) of the WT Act. 5. Section 3 of the WF Act imposes a tax on the net wealth of every individual, Hindu undivided family or a Company. The WT Act has not made a partnership firm an assessee. "Net Wealth" has been defined in section 2 (m) to mean the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of the WT Act of all the assets wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date. Under section 4(1) (b) of the WT Act it is provided that, where the individual assessee is a partner in a firm, it is the value of his interest in the firm determined in the prescribed manner, which is to be treated as belonging to him and is to be included in comp­uting his net wealth. "Prescribed manner* means prescribed by the Rules made under the WT Act, viz. Wealth tax Rules, 19:7. Rule 2 provides the manner of determination of the value of the interest of a person in a firm of which he is a partner. 6. In Addanki ( AIR 1966 SC 1300 ), while considering the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the partnership is formed or which may be acquired in course of the business, it was clearly stated by the Supreme Court that since a firm has no legal existence, the partnership property will vest in all the partners and in that sense, every partner has an interest in the property of the partnership. 7. In Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers vs. WTO, (1984) 145 ITR 485, the Supreme Court has held that the interest of a partner in a partnership firm belongs to him and-would be includible in the "asset" and will have to be taken into account while computing the net wealth of the individual. 8. 7. In Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers vs. WTO, (1984) 145 ITR 485, the Supreme Court has held that the interest of a partner in a partnership firm belongs to him and-would be includible in the "asset" and will have to be taken into account while computing the net wealth of the individual. 8. On reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court read with section 4(l)(b) and Rule 2, it emerges that, where individual assessee is a partner in a firm, the interest of a partner in the immovable property is to be included in computing his net wealth. That interest in the immovable property, or benefits to arise out of the land, cannot be said to be movable property. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter, the assessee was entitled to exemption, as provided under section5(l)(iv). This view of ours finds support from the decision in CWT vs. Nauraograi Agarwalla, (1985) 155 ITR 752 and CWT vs. Mira Mehta, (1985) 155 ITR 765 . In the above cases, the Cal­cutta High Court has held that the interest in assets of the firm belongs to the individual partner and is chargeable to wealth-tax, the partner will be entitled to exemption under section 5 (1) (iv) in the computation of such wealth. 9. The next question which arises for consideration is the method of education in computation of the wealth of the firm. As earlier stated, the WT Act has not made a partnership firm as an assessee. Therefore, the deduction contemplated is in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee and not of a firm which is not an assessee. In such a situation, the deduction has to be given in the hands of the assessee. In CWT vs. Christine, (1978) 114 ITR 532, the Karnataka High Court held that in computing the net wealth of an assessee, who was a partner in a firm which owned agricultural lands, the Value of the share of the assessee in agricultural lands will have to be included in his net wealth and the full deduction under section 5(l)(iv-a) has to be given in his hands. We are in respectful agreement of the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court. We are in respectful agreement of the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court. It also appears that the Supreme Court dismissed the S P (Civil) Nos 3574 & 3575 of 1981 filed by the Department against order dated 9.6.78 of the Karnataka High Court in TRC Nos 45,46 and 57 to 66 of 1975, whereby the High Court, following (1978) 114 ITR270, answered against the Department the question whether, where pro­perty was held jointly by the assessee and his four sons, the deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- was allowable in full in respect of each of the owners or whether the WTO was entitled to assess the joint prop­erties as a whole and deduct Rs.1,50,000/ - under section 5(l)(iv-a) of the WT Act and then divide the balance by five to arrive at the net wealth of each owner (See (1984) 147 1TR 2). For these reasons, the net wealth of the firm should be determined including the value of the building and then it should be allocated amongst the partners indicating the nature of assets and liabilities allotted to the share of the partner and that net wealth of the partner is to be determined by including the share so allotted, and only thereafter the deduction under section 5(1) (iv) should be allowed, i.e. deduction should be allowed under section 5 (1) (iv) in the hands of assessee partner and not in the hands of the firm. 10. In Purushotoamdas vs. CWT (1976) 104 ITR 608, the Madras High Court placed the reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. In that case before the Madras High Court, one of the assets of the partners was a house in which partners resided. The question was whether each of the partners was entitled to exemption under section 5(l)(iv) of the WT Act. It was observe by the Madras High Court that the assessee of that case could not claim to be entitled to any portion of that house property as exclusively belonging to them. However, in view of the above discussions, we are respectfully unable to agree with the findings of the Madras High Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. W.A.Shishak, J-I agree.