1. ' S. SAEED ASHHAD, J.---This Wealth-tax Case had been registered on the application under section 27(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, filed by the applicant/Department, raising two questions of law and submitting the same for seeking opinion of this Court. The questions of law raised in the afore-said Wealth Tax Case are as under:--- "(i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the house let out to M/s. Pak Libya Holding Co., Ltd., which has been given by the company free of rent to its M.D. Who is the assessee can be said as a house used for residential purpose and exempt under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.
(ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the claim of exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, can be entertained even when no such claim was made in the return or before the Wealth Tax Officer at the time of assessm ent."
2. ' The brief facts required for disposal of this case are that Mrs. Rashida Abid Hussain, wife of the respondent/assessee purchased a house on Plot No,6/II, 16th Street, Phase-II, Defence Housing Society, Karachi, which was let out to M/s. Pak Libya Holding Limited, which provided the said house to its Managing Director, the respondent/assessee for his residence. The respondent/assessee as per requirement of Explanation-I of section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act disclosed the house in his Wealth Tax return, also disclosed the agreed rent between the owner of the house, Mrs. Rashida Abid Hussain and M/s. Pak. Libya Holding Company Limited at Rs,4,000 per month and cost of the house of Rs,9,00,000. The Wealth Tax Officer valued the house at Rs,9,00,000 and added the same to the net wealth of the respondent/assessee. The respondent/assessee filed an appeal against the assessm ent year claiming the house to be exempt from charge to Wealth Tax under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, being occupied and used by him and his wife for their residence.
3. The respondent/assessee also raised an alternate ground that if the house was not found to be exempted from the provisions of section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, then it should be valued at 10 times of the monthly rent, received from M/s. Pak. Libya Holding Company Limited. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, to the respondent/assessee. The Department feeling aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) filed Second Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who by its order, dated 18-10-1987 dismissed the same upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The applicant/Department submitted a Reference Application to the Appellate Tribunal but the same was dismissed by its order, dated 20-5-1990.
4. Hence the above Wealth Tax Case on the basis of Application under section 27(4) of the Wealth Tax Act.
5. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. Javed Farooqui for Applicant/Department and Mr. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for the respondent/assessee and have also perused the material on record.
6. ' For the purpose of determination of the issue in dispute it will be appropriate to reproduce section 5(1)(xvi), Wealth Tax Act, which is as under:--- "5. Exemption in respect of certain assets:---(1) 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
(xvi) One residential house owned and occupied by the assessee for purposes of his own residence where such assessee opts to exclude such house from his assets:-- ' According to the provisions of Explanation-I to section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act the respondent/assessee was required to disclose each and every immovable property owned by the spouse or any minor child, which he did in the Wealth Tax returns filed by him. The respondent/assessee did not claim exemption made available to an assessee under section 5(1)
(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act before the Wealth Tax Officer but claimed the same before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The contention of Mr. Javed Farooqui is that on failure to claim the exemption before the Wealth Tax Officer the respondent/assessee would be deemed to have waived the same and it should not have been allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the Appeal before him. This contention is without any substance in view of the fact that there is no waiver or estoppel against a provision of law and furthermore the question of exemption, being a question of law, it could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. If any authority is required in support of this it is to be found in the case of Shad Muhammad v. Pir Sabir Shah, reported in PLD 1995 SC 66.
7. ' The grievance of the applicant/Department is that the respondent/assessee and his spouse were not occupying the house in dispute at the relevant time as owners of the house but that they were occupying the same as lease of M/s. Pak. Lybia Holding Company Limited, inasmuch as, the wife of the respondent/assessee, Mrs. Rashida Abid Hussain had leased out the house in dispute to M/s. Pak Libya Holding Company Limited on a monthly rent of Rs,4,000 per month. Mr. Javed Farooqui submitted that if the house in dispute had not been leased out to M/s. Pak Libya Holding Company Limited and the respondent/assessee had been in occupation thereof alongwith his wife and other members of the family, then the exemption by section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act, would have been made available to the respondent/assessee as then the occupation of the respondent/assessee and his spouse would have amounted to occupation/possession of owner.
8. Mr. Iqbal Naeem Pasha submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the Department is without any substance and in complete disregard of the provisions of section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act. He submitted that clause (xvi) provides exemption to an assessee from payment of Wealth Tax in respect of one residential house owned and occupied by an assessee for the purpose of his own residence. He further submitted that clause (xvi) has not laid down any condition with regard to the nature of occupation, i,e,, the occupation of the assessee should be as an owner and not in any other capacity so as to enable him to claim the benefit of the said clause.
9. He further submitted that a plain reading of clause (xvi) is sufficient to establish that the requirement for claiming exemption from payment of Wealth Tax of any immovable property, owned by an assessee, is that he should be in occupation thereof and should opt to exclude such property from his assets. The contention advanced by Mr. Iqbal Naeem Pasha merits consideration.
10. Clause (xvi) of section 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act has been reproduced hereinabove and a bare perusal thereof is sufficient to hold that the sole requirement for claiming exemption from payment of Wealth Tax in respect of an immovable property is that it should be occupied by the assessee for the purpose of his own residence. This clause does not envisage the nature of the occupation It does not speak of occupation of the property by assessee in his capacity as owner of the property. .In the circumstances the contention raised on behalf of the applicant/Department, that the respondent/assessee would have been entitled to the benefit of section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act it the property in dispute had not been leased out to M/s. Pak. Libya Holding Company Limited, holds no ground as it would require adding or reading the words in clause (xvi) of section 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act which do not appear therein. In interpreting the provisions of a statute the Court should adhere to the plain meaning of the expression and the words used in a statute and would not C deduce a meaning which is not available from a plain reading of the expression and the words used in the statute but require addition or reading of words in a statute. In support of the contention reliance can be placed on the case of Nasimul Haq Malim v. Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh, reported in 1996 SCM R 1264, wherein the Supreme Court expressed that nothing was to be read in a statute which was not expressly enacted therein. If we were to accept the interpretation of the Department that the benefit sought for by the respondent/assessee would be available to him if the occupation of the property in dispute was in his capacity as owner thereof then the words "as owner or in his capacity as owner" would be required to be read after the words "occupation as owner" appearing in section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth Tax Act. Such recourse would offend the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in its afore-cited judgment. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court we cannot add the words "as owner or in his capacity as owner" after the words "assessee" first used in clause (xvi) so as to give the meaning to the clause as proposed by the applicant.
11. ' It will be appropriate to refer to section 19(B).
12. ' Upon the above discussion we are satisfied that the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 18-10-1987 does not require to be interfered with. Accordingly we answer both the questions in the affirmative. This Wealth Tax Case stands dismissed and the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed.