JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1977-78 under [SECTION] of the [ACT], referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :
" Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and whether under a true and correct interpretation of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the assessee is entitled to grant of exemption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in respect of factory land and building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which, in fact, collectively belongs to the partners ?"
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the question framed by the Tribunal does not arise in the present case because the Wealth-tax Officer, Central Circle, Jodhpur, disallowed the claim of the assessee for the exemption under [SECTION] of the Act as the factory building is not covered under this definition and the question referred by the Tribunal, therefore, requires to be reframed ; or in the alternative, the Tribunal may be directed to send a fresh statement of the case as in the present form, the question is purely academic in nature and should be returned unanswered. It is further contended by learned counsel for the assessee that though there is a judgment of this court on the point in issue which covers the question referred by the Tribunal but the judgment of this court rendered in Smt [ENTITY] v. CWT [CASE NUMBER] requires reconsideration in view of the later judgments rendered in [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the only question, which has been referred for the opinion of this court, arises out of the judgment passed by the Tribunal and no other question arises and that question was referred on the application made by the assessee and the question, as it stands, can be decided and there is no question of reframing the question by this court. It is also contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Division Bench judgment of this court does not require any reconsideration as the same has been passed relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT].
3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
4. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee is that the question referred by the Tribunal does not arise in the present case. [SECTION] of the [ACT] requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The question referred by the Tribunal does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal because that was the only ground raised by the Revenue. The assessee in its application moved under [SECTION] also requested for referring the abovenoted question for the opinion of the High Court. It is only on the application of the assessee, in which a prayer was made for referring the above question for the opinion of the High Court, the question sought by the assessee has been referred. The contention, raised by learned counsel for the assessee, is, therefore, devoid of any force as the question which was sought to be referred by the assessee, was referred for the opinion of this court.
5. The next question raised by learned counsel for the assessee is that the Division Bench judgment of this court requires reconsideration in view of the later judgments of the Madhya Pradesh, Bombay and Madras High Courts referred to above. After going through the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Smt. [ENTITY] case [CASE NUMBER], we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT] and we are further of the opinion that the judgment passed by the Division Bench in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT] does not require reconsideration. There is no judgment either of the Supreme Court or of the High Court taking a contrary view which could not be considered by the Division Bench at the time of deciding [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT]. Even after the decision in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT], there is no judgment of the Supreme Court or of this court taking a contrary view. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT] does not require any reconsideration and we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT].
6. The material facts of this case are similar to the facts in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT] and an identical question of law was referred in that case and the Tribunal, while answering the question in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, held that "the partners of Messrs. Bichadi Agricultural Farm cannot claim exemption under [SECTION] in respect of the agricultural land of the firm, for, those lands do not belong to them and the benefit under [SECTION] of the Act can be given to the firm and not to an individual partner." For the same reasons given in [ENTITY] case [PRECEDENT], the present reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the assessee is not entitled for the grant of exemption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in respect of the factory land or the building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which, in fact, collectively belongs to the partners.
7. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the assessee is not entitled to grant of exemption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in respect of factory land and building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which in fact collectively belongs to the partners.