K. B. MENON, J. M. : This appeal by assessee relates to asst. yr. 1982-83, for which valuation date was 31st March, 1982. appeal is directed against rejection by WTO and AAC of assessee s claim for exemption under s. 5(1) (xxxiii) of WT Act, 1957. assessee is senior Central Government Officer. From May 1975 to May 1981 he was on deputation abroad to Sultanate of Oman. He returned to India in May, 1981, He brought into India moneys and assets whose value as on valuation date stood at Rs. 6,41,800. assessee claimed exemption with regard to this amount under s. 5 (1) (xxxiii). claim was rejected by WTO and AAC on ground that assessee had not been ordinarily residing in foreign country and that benefit of exemption will be available only to persons who have spent their lifetime abroad and who return to India for settling down permanently. only ground taken in appeal is that AAC erred in denying exemption to assessee. It was contended by ld. Representative for assessee that assessee was non-resident from May 1975 to May 1981, that exemption was intended to encourage persons working abroad to being their savings into India and that assessee satisfies conditions required for granting exemption. On other hand, it was contended by ld. Departmental Representative that exemption was not intended to cover persons who had gone abroad on deputation and that is applies only to persons who had been generally residing outside India and who had returned to India for purpose of permanently settling down in India. Sec. 5 (1) (xxxiii) reads thus: " 5. (1) Subject to provisions of sub-s. (1A) wealth-tax shall not be payable by assessee in respect of following assets, and such assets shall not be included in net wealth of assessee- xxx xxxx xxx xxxx (xxxiii) in case of assessee, being person of Indian origin who was ordinarily residing in foreign country and who, on leaving such country, has returned to India with intention of permanently residing therein, moneys, and value of assets brought by him into India and value of assets acquired by him out of moneys: provided that this exemption shall apply only for period of seven successive assessment years commencing with assessment year next following date on which such person returned to India. Explanation: person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if he, or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents, was born in undivided India;" On reading of section it will be found that for claiming exemption under cl. (xxxiii) following requirements should be satisfied:- assessee must be person of Indian origin; He must have been ordinarily residing in foreign country; On leaving foreign country he should have returned to India; returning to India must have been with intention of permanently residing in India. Revenue does not dispute facts that assessee was of Indian origin. It was, however, stated that exemption was intended for persons who had settled down in foreign countries and who were compelled to leave foreign countries. In this connection, reference was also made to Circular No. 202 dt. 5th July, 1976 issued by CBDT explaining provisions of Finance, Act. 1976. which introduced cl. (xxxiii) in s. 5 (1) of WT Act. [(1976) 105 ITR (SC) 17]. Paragraph 49 (1) of Circular deals with purpose of exemption it was intended only for benefit of persons who had settled down in foreign countries and who were compelled to leave foreign countries. Under Explanation to clause person will be deemed to be of India origin if he is born in India. assessee, therefore, satisfies condition No. 1. next condition is that assessee should have been ordinarily residing in foreign country. contention of Revenue is that Government servant, who had gone on deputation to foreign country and who had served there for period of six years as in present case, cannot be said to have been ordinarily residing in foreign country. In this connection, it was contended by Department representative that expression ordinarily residing occurring in clause should not be given same meaning as in IT Act, It was pointed out that definition of terms resident , non-resident and not ordinarily resident occurring in IT Act is not attracted to WT Act. In support of this argument, it was pointed out where any expression in WT Act is intended to carry same meaning as in IT Act specific provision has been made for same in WT Act as in Explanation 1 to s. 6 of W. T Act But Explanation 1 to s. 6 is not confined to s. 6. reading of section would indicate that meaning given to term in IT Act will generally apply to present controversy because Explanation 1 occurs in s. 6 which relates to exclusion of assets and debts outside India. For purpose of IT assessment assessee was non-resident prior to his return to India. During that period he was residing in foreign country and there is no justification for not treating him as person who was ordinarily residing in foreign country. assessee, therefore, satisfies condition No. 2. Condition No. 3 is clearly satisfied in case of assessee as he had left foreign country and had returned to India. Condition No. 4 requires that assessee should have returned to India with intention of permanently residing in India. It was contended by Revenue that this condition will indicate that prior to return assessee should have no intention of permanently residing in India and that this condition cannot apply in case of Central Government employee who has gone on deputation to foreign country because in such case there could not have been any intention of permanently residing in foreign country. It was, therefore, claimed by Revenue that this condition will require that assessee must have returned to India for permanently settling down in India and that this will not be applicable to case of assessee who had only gone on deputation to foreign country. In this context, assessee relied upon letter received from Canara Bank enclosing copy of letter dt. 14th Jan., 1983 received from Public Relation Officer, IT Department, Bombay. In that letter Public Relations Officer had stated that balance outstanding to credit of Non- resident (External) Savings Bank F. D. and foreign Currency Non-resident deposits account standing in name of Non-residents at time of returning to India is exempt from wealth-tax for 7 successive assessment years. letter is in general terms mentioning about returning to India. Further, question has to be decided on interpretation of cl. (xxxiii) and matter cannot be decided on basis of letter written by public Relations Officers. Reliance was also placed by assessee on Reserve Bank of India Manual relating to "Exchange Control: Non- Resident Indians" It is stated that Government servants debuted abroad on assignment with foreign Governments or regional/international agencies like Word Bank, International monetary Fund (IMF), World health Organisations (WHO), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and pacific (ESCAP) are non-residents. It is further stated in note that such non-residents Indians become residents in India only when they come back to country for employment or for carrying on in India any business or vocation or for any other purpose indicating intention for indefinite duration of stay in India. It is also stated that they cannot be regarded as persons resident in India when they come on visit to India for short period. This is in line with provisions of IT Act by which person visiting India for short period during period of employment outside India will not become resident. In this context, it was pointed out by assessee that merely because assessee may retain lien in Government service in India during period of his deputation abroad, it does not follow that when assessee returns to India after expiry of period of deputation he is not returning with intention of permanently residing in India. It is pointed out that it would be open to assessee to resign Government job and to continue to reside abroad. Similarly, it was open to assessee to repatriate or not to repatriate what he had earned in foreign country. It was, therefore, claimed that when after period of deputation assessee returns to India and brings with him wealth earned by him in foreign country, it can be case of assessee returning to India with intention of permanently residing therein. There is substance in contention. expression "with intention of permanently residing therein" might have been introduced to distinguish return to India on temporary visit to India. assets brought to India during temporary visit will not qualify for exemption. It will not, therefore, be correct to presume that expression "with intention of permanently residing therein" will indicate that exemption will be available only to those who had permanently settled down in foreign country. legislature in enacting exemption has not stated that assessee should have settled down in foreign country before his return t o India. Similarly, no period of residence abroad has been specified for qualifying person for exemption. present assessee happens to be Government servant and fact that he was on deputation is now urged as circumstance disentitling him for exemption. But, as pointed out by assessee, assessee could have resigned from Government service and could have continued to reside in foreign country. There are numerous persons who are now working in foreign countries on private employment. It is possible that may work in foreign country even without visiting India for period of six years and then decide to return to India. Can it be said that in their case there was no return to India with intention of permanently residing therein. residence of such persons in foreign countries on private employment may be for short period or it may run into long period like 25 years or 30 years. Can exemption be denied to them merely on ground that they had not disclosed any intention to settle down permanently in foreign country. It appears to us that exemption cannot be refused to such persons. legislature has not chosen to confine exemption to persons who had settled down in foreign countries. No indication is also available in section as to how many years residence abroad will qualify person to claim that he was ordinarily residing abroad. assessee s claim for exemption can be denied only if we holed hat expression "who was ordinarily residing in foreign country" relates to person who had settled down in fore country. But to do so would, in our opinion, amount to adding words to clause. Under circumstances, we feel that there is no justification to deny claim of assessee for benefit of exemption. we, therefore, hole that assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1) (xxxiii) of WT Act. In result, appeal is allowed. *** N. R. HIRAGANGO v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER