9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT COCHIN involved the assessment year 1982-83 and the rejection of the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee, a senior Central Government officer, had returned to India from a deputation abroad and brought moneys and assets worth Rs. 6,41,800. The claim for exemption was denied by the WTO and the AAC on the grounds that the assessee did not meet the conditions of the exemption. The only ground taken in the appeal was the denial of exemption by the AAC. The key contention was whether the assessee satisfied the conditions required for granting the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) (paragraphs 2-6). The requirements for claiming exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) were analyzed. The conditions included the assessee being a person of Indian origin, having ordinarily resided in a foreign country, returning to India with the intention of permanently residing therein, and bringing moneys and assets into India. The revenue did not dispute the assessee's Indian origin but contested whether the assessee had been ordinarily residing in a foreign country. The Tribunal examined the interpretation of 'ordinarily residing' in the context of the Act and the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the assessee, as a non-resident during the deputation period, satisfied the condition of residing in a foreign country. The Tribunal also discussed the intention of permanently residing in India and rejected the revenue's argument that it required settling down permanently in a foreign country before returning to India (paragraphs 7-12). The Tribunal found that the expression 'with the intention of permanently residing therein' in section 5(1)(xxxiii) did not necessitate prior settlement in a foreign country. It highlighted that the exemption did not specify a minimum period of residence abroad or a requirement of settling down in a foreign country. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee, despite being a Government servant on deputation, was entitled to the exemption as he had returned to India with the intention of permanently residing there. The judgment emphasized that the exemption should not be limited to those who had settled down in foreign countries and that adding such restrictions would be unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the assessee the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) (paragraph 12-13).
|
