COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH -TAX v. MEGHAJI GIRDHARILAL
[Citation -1985-LL-0722-5]

Citation 1985-LL-0722-5
Appellant Name COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH -TAX
Respondent Name MEGHAJI GIRDHARILAL
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/07/1985
Assessment Year 1963-64
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags wealth-tax act • net wealth
Bot Summary: The facts giving rise to this reference as per the statement of the case received may be stated, in brief, thus; the dispute relates to the addition of the value of gold and silver ornaments intended for household use of the respondent-assessee in the computation of her net wealth. The Wealth-tax Officer made a number of additions for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1971- 72 which comprised the entire value of gold and silver ornaments held by the assessee. The assessee took up the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Wealth-tax held that gold and silver ornaments intended for the personal or household use within the meaning of section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth- tax Act could not be included in her net wealth for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63. So far as the later years, now in dispute, that is 1963-64 to 1965-66 were concerned, the question before him was whether gold and silver ornaments were covered by the term jewellery as used in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax held that the extended meaning of the term jewellery would be applicable only with effect from the assessment year 1972-73 and onwards for the reason that Explanation which extends this meaning came into force only with effect from April 1, 1972. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri R. C. Mukati, frankly submitted that the Tribunal has given proper reasons for deciding the question involved in favour of the assessee. Jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones for any assessment years prior to April 1, 1972.


JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by P.D. MULYE J. -The Income-tax Appellate tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, at instance of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, has made this reference under section 27(1) of wealthtax Act, 1957, for opinion of this court on following question of law; " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that extended meaning of term 'jewellery' in view of Explanation I to section 5(1)(viii) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957, would be applicable only with effect from 1-4-72, i.e., for assessment year 1972-73 and onwards?" It may be noted at outset that Tribunal has made this reference relating to assessment year 1963-64 only, though Revenue had also prayed for making reference for assessment years 1964-6 and 1965-66 also. facts giving rise to this reference as per statement of case received may be stated, in brief, thus; dispute relates to addition of value of gold and silver ornaments intended for household use of respondent-assessee in computation of her net wealth. Wealth-tax Officer made number of additions for assessment years 1957-58 to 1971- 72 which comprised entire value of gold and silver ornaments held by assessee. assessee took up matter in appeal and Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that gold and silver ornaments intended for personal or household use within meaning of section 5(1)(viii) of Wealth- tax Act could not be included in her net wealth for assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63. So far as later years, now in dispute, that is 1963-64 to 1965-66 were concerned, question before him was whether gold and silver ornaments were covered by term "jewellery" as used in section 5(1)(viii) of Wealth- tax Act, 1957. Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that extended meaning of term "jewellery" would be applicable only with effect from assessment year 1972-73 and onwards for reason that Explanation which extends this meaning came into force only with effect from April 1, 1972. Revenue filed second appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal, after considering entire matter, upheld contention of Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for detailed reasons given in its order. However, this reference is made at instance of Revenue. Learned counsel for Revenue, Shri R. C. Mukati, frankly submitted that Tribunal has given proper reasons for deciding question involved in favour of assessee. He further submitted that view taken by Tribunal has been fortified by Full Bench decision of this court in CWT v. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal [1983] 140 ITR 374, wherein it has been held that by amending section 5(1)(viii) by addition of Explanation, it is effective only from April 1, 1972. "Jewellery" will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones for any assessment years prior to April 1, 1972. Thus, in view of this decision and after hearing learned counsel, we are of opinion that reference has to be answered in favour of assessee and against Department. Our answer to question referred is, therefore, in favour of assessee and against Department. reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH -TAX v. MEGHAJI GIRDHARILAL
Report Error