JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J.- These two references involve a common question of law based on identical facts and as such are being disposed of by a common judgment. The reference have been made by the Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter in• short 'the Act') seeking opinion of this Court on the following question : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1) (iv) 5(1)(xxxa) and 5(1) (xxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assets owned by the firm in which the assessee was a partner ?" 2. In both these cases the assessees are the partners of a registered partnership firm M/s Narbheram Vishram Gua. The assessment year involved is 1978-79. The firm owned two buildings, one of which was used for running a petrol pump and the other was used solely for the purpose of residence of the persons employed in the undertaking belonging to the firm. The firm also owned loan bonds. In the Wealth Tax returns filed by the assessees, they claimed deductions to the extent of their shares in ,the said three assets held by the firm under the provisions of sections 5(1) (iv), 5(1) (xxxa) and 5(1) (xxii). The claim was rejected by the Wealth Tax Officer on the ground that the said assets were owned by the firm and the assessees cannot be deemed to be owners thereof only because the¥ are the partners of the firm thereby entitling them to the deduction claimed. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having failed, the assessees went to the Tribunal in' Second Appeal. The Tribunal held that the claim was sustainable and accordingly the additions made in respect of the said three assets by the Wealth Tax Officer was deleted. 3. Mr. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having failed, the assessees went to the Tribunal in' Second Appeal. The Tribunal held that the claim was sustainable and accordingly the additions made in respect of the said three assets by the Wealth Tax Officer was deleted. 3. Mr. Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that the sine qua non for claiming deductions under three clauses of section 5(1) of the Act referred to above, is that the assets should be owned by the assessee and according to him, since in the present case the asset admittedly belong to the firm which has a separate and distinct legal entity, the assessees only by virtue of their status as partners in the said firm cannot claim to be the owners of the said as sets and as such, they cannot derive any benefit of deduction under the provisions in question. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the cases of Purushothamdas Gocouldas v. CWT, reported in (1976) 104 ITR 60S (Mad.), and Addanki Narayanappa v. Rhaskara Krishnappa, reported in AIR 1966 S. C. 1300. 4. On the other hand Mr. K. N. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the assessees, submitted that a firm is merely a compendious name of the partners constituting the firm and under the common law pertaining to ownership it is not an independent person in contra-distinction to its partners. His submission is that the property of the firm is, always for all legal and practical purposes, the property of the partners. Therefore, whatever is said to be owned by the firm in common parlance for convenience, is for all legal purposes the property owned by its partners. Accordingly, he submitted that all deductions which are admissible to a person as a owner of the assets has to be allowed to the partners of the firm in respect of the properties held by their firm. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the case of CWT v. Nand Lal Jalan, reported in (1980) 122 ITR 781 (Palo). 5. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the case of CWT v. Nand Lal Jalan, reported in (1980) 122 ITR 781 (Palo). 5. The provisions under which an assessee is claiming deductions may first be quoted, which run thus : "Section 5(1) Subject to the provisions' of sub-section (IA), 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- (i) .... (iv) one house or part of a. house belonging to the assessee; . (xxii) any security of the Central Government or a State Government not being a security referred to in clause (xvi) or clause (xvia); . (xxxa) the value of any building belonging to the assessee, where the building is used solely for the purpose of residence of persons employed by the assessee, in any plantation or industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee and the income of each such person chargeable under the head "Salaries" under the Income-Tax is ten thousand rupees or less;" 6. Having heard the rival contentions and on an examination of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the answer to the question referred depends on the legal issue as to whether the partners of the firm are in law the owners of the assets held and owned by the firm constituted• of them. Before proceeding further I may notice here that though clause (iv) and clause (xxxa) expressly say about the asset belonging to the assessee but clause (xxii) docs not use any such expression. But, in my opnion, it is not of much consequence because the requirement of the ownership of the assessee in the asset has to be held as implicit since unless the assessee is owner of an asset that cannot be considered for the purpose of ascertaining his wealth. 7. But, in my opnion, it is not of much consequence because the requirement of the ownership of the assessee in the asset has to be held as implicit since unless the assessee is owner of an asset that cannot be considered for the purpose of ascertaining his wealth. 7. So far as the pivotal question of ownership of the assessees in the assets in question is concerned, in my opinion, I am not required to delve deep into the issue because the same has been duly considered by a Bench of this Court in the case of CWT v. Nand Lal Jalan (Supra) in which it has been held that: "It cannot be gainsaid that during the continuance of the partnership, no partner can say that 'any particular part of the firm's assets were his assets but certainly he can always say that he together with his other partners are the owners of the assets possessed by the firm. He may not be able to say that "a particular asset of the firm belongs to me" but he can always say that "the partnership assets belong to us". Now, therefore, when the assessment is of the net wealth of a partner, which under the rules framed under the W.T.Act is determined by first determining the net wealth of the firm, in my opinion, it would be wholly unreal to leave out the exemptions to which a partner thereof would be entitled for the purpose of assessment of his net wealth. The Madras High Court in the case of Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. CWT (1976) 104 ITR 608 has held that a partner will not be entitled to receive the exemption under section 5(1) (iv) of the Act in respect of an asset owned by a firm, but with great respect to their Lordships, I do not agree with that conclusion for the simple reason that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addanki Narayanappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 , although quoted for arriving at that conclusion, has not been appreciated in its proper context. A similar question arose before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza (1978) 114 ITR 532. A similar question arose before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza (1978) 114 ITR 532. There the exemption claimed was under s. 5(1) (iva) of the W.T. Act relating to the value of the agricultural land, the agricultural land having been thrown in as an asset of the firm, of which the assessee was a partner. On a consideration of the various case law, their Lordships came to the conclusion that the exemption was admissible in determining the net wealth of the partner. Now, therefore, keeping in view the above discussions, it cannot but be said that even though during the subsistence of a partnership, assets thrown into the partnership by the partners get merged together and lose their identity, yet all the same, the assets as a whole do belong to the partners. In computing the net wealth of the firm by reference to r. 2 of the W.T. Rules, if a partner qualified for any of the exemptions provided under the Act, such exemptions must he taken into consideration for dater mining the net wealth of the firm in of the said rule. In mind hat the assets of the firm belong to the partners, if one looks at the provisions of cl. (iv) of s. 5(1) of the Act, it is clear that the partners do qualify for receiving that exemption. The house in question belongs to them and, therefore, also belong to "the Assessee". The same view has been taken by the High Courts of Karnataka, Calcutta, M. P. and Gauhati in the eases of CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza, reported in (1978) 114 ITR 532 CWT v. Sri Naurangrai Agarwalla, reported in (1985) 155 ITR 752 , CWT v. Dipak Kumar Sen & Ajit K. Sengupta, repoted in (1985) 155 . ITR 765, Jagdish Chandra Grover v. CWT, reported in (1985) 156 ITR 560, CWT v. Tarachand Agarwalla, reported in (19'89) 180 ITR 234 and CWT v. Subimal Sen & ors., reported in (I'J'J2) 195 ITR 574. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I record our opinion to the question referred in affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Cost is assessed at Rs. 250/- in each case. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. Aftab Alam, J. -I agree