9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of wealth-tax on the value of jewellery, retrospective amendment to s. 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, rectification of appellate orders, interpretation of legal provisions regarding jewellery exemption. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under s. 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, concerning the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70. The respondent-assessee was assessed to wealth-tax on the value of jewellery, which she contended was exempt under s. 5(1)(viii) of the Act. The AAC initially accepted the assessee's contention based on a Supreme Court decision but later, due to a retrospective amendment by s. 32 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, jewellery was no longer exempt. The WTO sought rectification of the appellate order, which was rejected by the AAC, leading to appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, prompting the reference question on whether the rectification was justified. The court considered the applicability of the amending provision to completed assessments, citing the Bombay Dyeing Company case where the Supreme Court allowed rectification based on retrospective amendments. The court highlighted that the legal fiction of retrospective operation necessitated rectification if the order became inconsistent with the amended provisions. The judgment emphasized that the question of applicability of amendments to completed assessments was not debatable, as seen in other precedents, including the IAC of Agrl. I.T. v. V. M. Ravi Namboodiripad case. Further, the court discussed the interpretation of the term "jewellery" under s. 5(1)(viii), noting that the subsequent Explanation 1 added by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 expanded the meaning of jewellery. The court held that the wider interpretation applied retrospectively, despite being made effective prospectively. Consequently, the appellate orders were deemed to suffer from a mistake apparent from the record due to the retrospective amendments, and the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal erred in not rectifying the same. In conclusion, the court answered the reference question in the negative, favoring the department, as the appellate orders were found to have a mistake apparent on the record. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering retrospective amendments and legal interpretations in rectifying assessment orders, ultimately upholding the rectification sought by the revenue.
|
