Judgment :- K. A. THANIKKACHALAM J. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the opinion of this court, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in computing the assessee's interest in the firm of Sri Santhanalakshmi Mills, the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act should be granted to the firm in respect of a godown owned by it and the assessee's share should be arrived at on the basis of the net wealth of the firm so arrived at?" * The assessee is assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. He is a partner in Sree Santhanalakshmi Mills, Pollachi. In valuing his interest in the firm, he claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, in respect of a godown owned by the firm. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the godown could not be treated as a "house" within the meaning of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. He accordingly, added back a sum of Rs. 50, 000 to the net wealth of the assessee in each year On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that as per the Board's circular, the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act should be allowed even in respect of buildings used for commercial purposes and hence the assessee's claim should be allowed The Department took the matter to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that since the assessee's share in the firm is only a movable property, there is no question of granting exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. The Tribunal held that "net wealth" of the firm should be computed after allowing exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the Departmental appeal was dismissedBefore us, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that a godown cannot be a "house" as contemplated under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal was not correct in allowing exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Tribunal We have heard the rival submissions. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal was not correct in allowing exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Tribunal We have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that in valuing the assessee's interest in the firm, the assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act, in respect of a godown owned by the firm. The point for consideration is, whether a godown can be considered as a "house" as contemplated within the meaning of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular F. No. 317/8/73-WT, dated July 9, 1973, which runs as under "Instruction No. 568 XIX-VII/29---Exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act---Meaning of the word 'house'.--- Under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee is exempt from wealth-tax up to a limit of Rs. one lakh. Under this clause as it stood prior to the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 * According to the abovesaid circular, the building used for purposes other than residential would also qualify for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. According to the Board's circular, the term "house" in section 5(1)(iv) of the Act would refer not only to building used for residential purposes, but for other purposes as well. A godown is also a building. Therefore, exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act would be available even with regard to the godown In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gram Panchayat [1976] 1976 AIR(SC) 2463, 1976 (4) SCC 177 , 1977 (1) SCR 306 , 1976 CrLJ 1736 , 1976 SCC(Tax) 457; while considering the provisions of section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, the Supreme Court held that the word "house" is a structure of a permanent character. It is structurally severed from other tenements. It is not necessary that a house if adapted for residential purposes should be actually dwelt in. The idea of the varieties of meanings can be had from the subject-matter of the statute. It was further held that the word "house" extends to a building, which is used for business and should not be restricted to a mere dwelling house. It is not necessary that a house if adapted for residential purposes should be actually dwelt in. The idea of the varieties of meanings can be had from the subject-matter of the statute. It was further held that the word "house" extends to a building, which is used for business and should not be restricted to a mere dwelling house. It is not limited to a structure designed for human habitation, and may mean a building or shed intended or used as a habitation or shelter for animals of any kind, a building in the ordinary sense or any building, edifice, or structure enclosed with walls and covered, regardless of the fact of human habitation. Under particular circumstances, the term has been held equivalent to and interchangeable or synonymous with "building", " dwelling"and" dwelling house" and sometimes premises. Our attention was drawn to a decision rendered in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT 1995 (214) ITR 76, 1995 (127) CTR 158, 1995 (83) TAXMAN 134 , 1995 (127) CTR(Mad) 158, wherein this court held that a cinema theatre cannot be called a "house". In that decision, the Board's Circular, as stated above, was not considered by this court. In view of the foregoing reasons, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in granting exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, with regard to the godown owned by the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.