9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the term "jewellery" included ornaments according to the first proviso to clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and whether the addition of Explanation was merely clarificatory. 2. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse and not based on law. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Definition and Inclusion of Jewellery The primary issue revolved around whether gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones fell under the definition of "jewellery" as per section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, prior to the addition of Explanation 1, which became effective from April 1, 1972. Arguments by the Assessee: - The assessee argued that gold ornaments were exempt from wealth-tax up to the assessment year 1971-72 because the definition of "jewellery" which included ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum, or any other precious metal, was only added from April 1, 1972. - They contended that prior to this date, gold ornaments could not be considered "jewellery" for the purposes of wealth-tax. Arguments by the Revenue: - The Revenue contended that the term "jewellery" in its ordinary meaning included not only ornaments studded with precious stones but also those made of gold, silver, or other precious metals. - They argued that Explanation 1 was added by way of abundant caution and did not alter the inherent meaning of the term "jewellery." Court's Analysis: - The court reviewed the legislative history and judicial interpretations of the term "jewellery." - It noted that the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Jayantilal Amratlal [1976] and the Delhi High Court in CWT v. Smt. Savitri Devi [1983] had held that "jewellery" included ornaments made of gold, silver, or other precious metals, irrespective of whether they were studded with precious stones. - The court disagreed with the contrary views of the Orissa, Calcutta, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which had held that "jewellery" did not include gold ornaments without precious stones prior to the addition of Explanation 1. - The court emphasized that the dictionary meaning of "jewellery" was broad enough to include articles made of precious metals used for personal adornment and that the term should be understood in its ordinary parlance, which includes gold ornaments. Conclusion: - The court concluded that the term "jewellery" in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act included ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum, or any other precious metal, irrespective of whether they contained precious or semi-precious stones. - It held that the addition of Explanation 1 was merely clarificatory and did not alter the inherent meaning of the term "jewellery." Issue 2: Perverse Order of the Tribunal The second issue was whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse and not based on law. Court's Analysis: - The Tribunal had followed the decision of the Orissa High Court in CWT v. Binapani Chakraborty [1978] 114 ITR 82, which had held that gold ornaments without precious stones were not "jewellery" prior to April 1, 1972. - The court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the term "jewellery" and the legislative intent behind the amendments to section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act. Conclusion: - The court held that the Tribunal's order was perverse and not based on a correct interpretation of the law. - It concluded that the Tribunal had erred in excluding the value of gold ornaments from the taxable net wealth of the assessee. Final Judgment: - The court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. - The term "jewellery" included ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum, or any other precious metal, irrespective of whether they contained precious or semi-precious stones. - The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse and not based on law.
|
