JUDGMENT : 1. There is delay in filing the appeal and an application being G.A. No. 1432 of 2016 has been taken out for condonation of delay. 2. On going through this application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. We accordingly condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 3. The appeal and the stay petition (G.A. No. 1433 of 2016) are both taken up for hearing together as Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee waives service of notice of appeal. All other formalities are also dispensed with in that regard. 4. This appeal by the Revenue is against an order of the Tribunal confirming the Commissioner’s order in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had made assessment under the provisions of Sections 16(3)/17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 finding the assessee liable for tax under the aforesaid statute to the extent of Rs.10,00,477/-. Two house properties in Mumbai, at 62A, Napean Sea Road and Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, were held to be taxable under the provisions of the aforesaid Act along with jewelry and bullion. The house properties were valued at Rs.7,60,77,340/- and gold was valued at Rs.17,95,655/-. The assessee is an incorporated company. Main case of the assessee is that these items were not taxable under the 1957 Act. According to the assessee, one of these two properties was used for residential purpose by a Director of the assessee company and the other was used for the purpose of assessee’s business. Mr. Majumdar has relied upon the provisions of Sections 2(ea)(i)(1) and (3) of the 1957 Act in support of the appellant’s case. So far as bullion is concerned, our attention was brought to the proviso to clause (iii) of the same sub-section by Mr. Majumdar. The assessee’s appeal against the order of assessment was allowed by the Commissioner. 5. Mr. Majumdar has relied upon the provisions of Sections 2(ea)(i)(1) and (3) of the 1957 Act in support of the appellant’s case. So far as bullion is concerned, our attention was brought to the proviso to clause (iii) of the same sub-section by Mr. Majumdar. The assessee’s appeal against the order of assessment was allowed by the Commissioner. 5. On the question of assessee’s claim that the house properties were not taxable under the 1957 Act, the Commissioner, inter alia held :– “5.2 Ground No.2 : This ground of the appeal in which the appellant company has challenged the imposition of Wealth Tax on two immovable properties purchased during the year in Mumbai, is decided in favour of the appellant for the following reasons as per discussion hereunder in respect of two properties : Residential Property at 10, Mistry Manor, 62A, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai (i) Section 2(ea)(i)(1) of Wealth Tax Act provides that the value of residential house allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or a director who is in whole-time employment, having a gross annual salary of less than five lakh rupees is not liable to wealth tax. (ii) It is not in dispute that the residential property at 10, Mistry Manor, 62A, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai has been allotted by the company to its whole time director Smt. Anita Krishna. (iii) As per the ld A/R the gross annual salary of Smt. Anita Krishna is less than Rs 5,00,000/- and she has offered in her Income Tax Return perquisite value of this property as her income. (iv) Since the A.O. has not controverted these submissions of the A/R hence I am of the considered view that the property situated at 10, Mistry Manor, 62A, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai satisfies the conditions laid in section to 2(ea)(i)(1) of the Wealth Tax Act and its value Rs.6,45,89,190/- is not liable to wealth tax. Accordingly the addition made by the A.O. in taxable wealth in respect of this property is deleted. Office at C-6, Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai (i) Section 2(ea)(i)(3) of Wealth Tax Act provides that the value of any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him is not liable to wealth tax. Office at C-6, Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai (i) Section 2(ea)(i)(3) of Wealth Tax Act provides that the value of any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him is not liable to wealth tax. (ii) It is not in dispute that main active director of the company Shri Ravi Krishna resides in Mumbai and some financial transaction relating to insurance and Bank are executed from his residential house situated in Mumbai. As discussed above Smt. Anita Krishna the other director of the company has also a place to reside in Mumbai. (iii) It is also not in dispute that in all the trading related to shares and mutual fund the Mumbai address of “India Ltd. Bandbox House Rear, 2nd Floor and 254-D, Dr. A.B. Road, Worly Mumbai” is given. (iv) The above factual position supports the contention of ld A/R that the appellant was in need an office in Mumbai and for this purpose the appellant company has acquired the property situated at C-6, Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai. (v) The A/R submission that the company has used the property for holding business meeting etc has not been controverted by the AO by any material evidence. (vi) That the case of Tracstar Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CWT (2008) 1 SOT 117 (Mum) it has been held that the expression “may occupy” means that even if the house is kept ready for business purpose, the house is entitled for exemption. (vii) For the above reasons I am of the considered view that the property situated at C-6, Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai satisfies the conditions laid in section to 2(ea)(i)(3) of the Wealth Tax Act hence its value Rs. (vii) For the above reasons I am of the considered view that the property situated at C-6, Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai satisfies the conditions laid in section to 2(ea)(i)(3) of the Wealth Tax Act hence its value Rs. 1,14,88,150/- is not liable to wealth tax and accordingly the addition made by the AO in taxable wealth in respect of this property is deleted.” On the question of taxability under the 1957 Act for the gold, the Commissioner found – “5.3 Ground No.3 : The third ground of the appeal in which the appellant company has challenged the imposition of Wealth Tax on gold purchased in commodity exchange and shown as stock in trade, is also decided in favour of the appellant for the under mentioned reasons – (i)It is not in dispute that the appellant has purchased gold in commodity exchange and the appellant does not hold the physical possession of gold. (ii)The A/R submission that the appellant company has purchased the gold on commodity exchange with the object of doing trading in gold and for this reason the appellant company has not taken physical delivery of gold is duly supported by the fact that the appellant company has shown the gold it has purchased in commodity exchange as stock in trade in its audited accounts. (iii)As per section 2(ea)(iii) of Wealth Tax Act jewellery Bullion etc held as stock in trade are not included in the definition of asset for Wealth Tax purposes. (iv)In view of this specific provision of Wealth Tax I am of the considered view that the gold purchased in commodity market of which the delivery has not been taken by the appellant and shown as stock in trade in the books of accounts fulfills the conditions laid by section 2(ea)(iii) of Wealth Tax Act hence no Wealth Tax is payable on the gold of Rs. 17,95,655/- accordingly the addition of Rs. 17,95,655/- made by the AO in the Wealth is deleted.” (Quoted verbatim). 6. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue, defends the order of the Assessing Officer on both these grounds. 7. We, however, find that two statutory appellate authorities have come to a finding on fact which takes out the assets involved in this case outside the taxing ambit of the 1957 Act. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue, defends the order of the Assessing Officer on both these grounds. 7. We, however, find that two statutory appellate authorities have come to a finding on fact which takes out the assets involved in this case outside the taxing ambit of the 1957 Act. Further scrutinising such concurrent finding would entail re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at this stage. No material has been brought to our notice which would render the decision perverse. We do not find any reason to interfere. The appeal and the stay petition both stand dismissed.