JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.— These two appeals are by the revenue challenging the orders passed by the appellate authorities holding that the value of the asset owned and used by the assessee-company in M.G. Road, Bangalore, is excluded from the purview of levying of wealth tax. These two appeals arise because of the two assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessee is a limited company and has a leasehold property situated in M.G. Road, Bangalore. It has developed the said property into a commercial complex and deriving rental income therefrom. The asset in question is a business asset and is exploited for commercial purposes. The assessee claimed exemption from wealth tax under Section 2(ea) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. For the assessment years 1984-85 to 1992-93, the said benefit was granted to the assessee. It is because, as per the law stood then, commercial building was not subjected to wealth tax. However, the Wealth-tax Act was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, which came into effect from 1-4-1997 bringing within the fold of the Act any building or land appurtenant thereto used for commercial purposes. Therefore, in view of the change in the law, the request of the assessee was rejected for those two years. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Authority, accepting the contention of the assessee, held that as the assessee is in the business of letting out properties and though the asset in question is a commercial building, it is excluded from the definition of the word 'asset' as is clear from the Circular issued by the Board of Revenue. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred appeals. The Tribunal also affirmed the said issue and dismissed the appeals. Therefore, the revenue has filed these appeals before this Court. 2. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law are framed: 1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the property owned by the assessee at M.G. Road, Bangalore, which had been let out on rent could not be treated as an asset for the purpose of wealth tax and brought to tax? 2. 2. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law are framed: 1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the property owned by the assessee at M.G. Road, Bangalore, which had been let out on rent could not be treated as an asset for the purpose of wealth tax and brought to tax? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the rental income derived by the assessee from M.G. Road, Property owned by it was the business income of the assessee and therefore, the said asset should be treated as a commercial asset and excluded from wealth tax when this property and its income has been treated as income under the head 'Income from house property' under the Income Tax proceedings and not under the head ' Income from Business' in consonance with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex and Industries (P.) Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 517 KAR ? 3. Whether the amended provisions of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act brought into effect from 1-4-1997 is applicable to the asset of the assessee situated at M.G. Road, and the same is liable to be brought to wealth tax? Though at the time of admission, the aforesaid three substantial questions of law have been framed, but the real question of law which is involved in these appeals is as contained in question of law No. 3. 3. It is not in dispute that the subject-matter of these appeals i.e., the business asset, as the law stood prior to 1-4-1997, was not subjected to wealth tax. For the first time, by way of amendment to the definition of the word 'asset' as contained in Section 2(ea) of the Act, the following section was substituted, which has come into effect from 1-4-1997: The term "assets", on which tax is to be levied, is defined in Clause (ea) of Section 2. This definition includes any guest house and any residential house (including a farm house situated within 25 kms. of the local limits of any municipality) for levy of tax, except the exclusions made in items (1) and (2) of Sub-clause (1) of this clause. This definition includes any guest house and any residential house (including a farm house situated within 25 kms. of the local limits of any municipality) for levy of tax, except the exclusions made in items (1) and (2) of Sub-clause (1) of this clause. If residential houses have been taken as assets, there seems to be no reason why commercial properties, other than those used by the assessees wholly and exclusively in his business or profession, should also be not taken as assets. It is, therefore, proposed to tax commercial buildings, which are not used by the assessee in this business or profession, "other than the business of letting out of properties. 4. The amendment to the Explanation to the provisions of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, reads as under: (ea) "assets", in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, or any subsequent assessment year, means: (i) any building or land appurtenant thereto (hereinafter referred to as "house"), whether used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest-house or otherwise including a farm house situated within twenty-five kilometres from local limits of any municipality (whether known as municipality, municipal corporation or by any other name) or a cantonment board, but does not include-- (1) a house meant exclusively for residential purposes and B which is allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or director who is in whole-time employment, having a gross annual salary of less than two lakh rupees; (2) any house for residential or commercial purposes which forms part of stock-in-trade; (3) any house which the Assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession , carried on by him; 5. After the amendment came into force, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular No. 762, dated 18-2-1998, explaining the substantive proviso of the Act relating to direct taxes. For reference, the amendment of the term 'assets' explained in the proviso is as under: The term 'assets', on which tax is to be levied, is defined in Clause (ea) of Section 2. This definition includes any guest house and any residential house (including a farm house situated within 25 kms. of the local limits of any municipality) except the assets mentioned in Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of this clause. This definition includes any guest house and any residential house (including a farm house situated within 25 kms. of the local limits of any municipality) except the assets mentioned in Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of this clause. If residential houses have been taken as assets, there seems to be no reason why commercial properties, other than those used by the Assessees wholly and exclusively in his business or profession, should also be not taken as assets. By an amendment, commercial buildings, which are not occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of his business or profession, other than the business of letting out properties, shall be brought to tax under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 6. The said amended section was in force only for two years by Finance Act (No. 2), 1988, and the same underwent a radical change, wherein it is said that any property which is in the nature of commercial building or complex do not fall within the definition of the word 'asset' as defined under Section 2(ea) of the Act. It is in this background, the Assessee claims that, as the asset in question is the business asset of the Assessee, and as the Assessee is in the business of letting out properties as is clear from the explanatory note appended to the Bill as well as the Circular issued by the CBDT after passing of the amendment, the asset which he had let out did not fall within the definition of the word 'asset' and therefore, the company is not liable to pay the wealth tax. The explanatory note and the CBDT circular make it very clear that, prior to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, the commercial properties were not included within the definition of the word 'asset'. Therefore, it was felt that, if residential houses have been taken as assets, there seems to be no reason why commercial properties other than those used by the Assessee wholly and substantially in die business of his profession, will also be not taken as assets. Therefore, by an amendment, commercial buildings which are not occupied by the assessee for the purposes of his business or profession other than the business of letting out property, shall be brought to tax under Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Therefore, it is clear that, the intention was to stimulate investment in productive assets. Therefore, by an amendment, commercial buildings which are not occupied by the assessee for the purposes of his business or profession other than the business of letting out property, shall be brought to tax under Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Therefore, it is clear that, the intention was to stimulate investment in productive assets. Therefore, the Parliament thought it fit to abolish the amended Act, excluding the business assets, i.e., the commercial establishments, which are not used by the assessee or which are let out, as they are not stimulative investment. However, as is clear from the aforesaid explanatory note, the CBDT circular and the subsequent action of further amending the said section, it is clear that the intention was not to tax business assets used by the assessee for the purpose of his business or profession and also the business assets which are let out, if the assessee is in the business of letting out properties. All other types of commercial properties were brought to tax under the Wealth-tax. 7. Both the appellate authorities after carefully going to the aforesaid circulars, amendments, explanatory note and keeping in mind the intention in enacting the Wealth-tax Act as well as drastic amendment in the year, we are of the opinion that the assessee was justified in claiming the exclusion of the properties which are the subject of the matter of the proceedings, from wealth tax. We do not find any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. Appeals are dismissed accordingly.