9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'jewellery' in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 prior to the amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involved seven references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act concerning the assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72. The primary question referred to the court was whether the term 'jewellery' in section 5(1)(viii) of the Act, before the 1971 amendment, could include gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them. The Wealth-tax Officer included the value of gold ornaments in the net taxable wealth for the relevant years based on the 1971 amendment, disallowing exemption for jewellery kept for personal use. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the inclusion of the value of jewellery in the net wealth, rejecting the assessee's argument against the amendment's authorization for such inclusion. However, the Tribunal, in the second appellate stage, held that the 1971 amendment was effective only from April 1, 1972, and thus, Explanation I had no retrospective effect. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of the value of gold ornaments, stating that they could not be considered as jewellery before April 1, 1972. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505, 510, 511 (SC) to analyze the distinction between different classes of jewellery under various sections of the Wealth-tax Act. The Court highlighted that section 5(1)(viii) dealt with jewellery intended for personal use, while section 5(1)(xv) encompassed jewellery not intended for personal use. The 1971 amendment introduced a specific exemption excluding jewellery from net wealth, effective from April 1, 1963, with prospective Explanations added from April 1, 1972. The judgment concluded that the term 'jewellery' in section 5(1)(viii) before the 1971 amendment did not include gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them. The Tribunal's decision to delete the value of gold ornaments from taxable net wealth was deemed appropriate, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation and the non-retrospective effect of Explanation I. The court's opinion on the referred question affirmed this interpretation, awarding costs to the assessee and assessing the hearing fee accordingly.
|
