1995 (5) TMI 76 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjournment of hearing of appeals.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
3. Dispute regarding exemption under section 5(1)(xxii) of WT Act, 1957.
4. Interpretation of section 5(1)(x) and section 5(1)(xii) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The first issue addressed in the judgment was the application for adjournment of the hearing of the appeals by the assessee-respondent. The tribunal rejected the application for adjournment as per Rule 25 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, after considering the arguments presented by the Departmental Representative. The tribunal proceeded to hear the appeals without granting an adjournment.

2. The second issue involved the condonation of the delay in filing the appeals, which were submitted late by 8 days. The tribunal examined the reasons for the delay and found that it was due to official procedures, which was considered a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned after hearing the Departmental Representative on the matter.

3. The third issue revolved around the dispute concerning the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessee, a practicing lawyer, claimed exemption for the value of books belonging to him on relevant valuation dates. The tribunal considered the conflicting interpretations of the law and previous decisions cited by both parties to determine the applicability of the exemption claimed by the assessee.

4. The final issue involved the interpretation of section 5(1)(x) and section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Departmental Representative argued that exemption for tools and instruments used by a lawyer should fall under section 5(1)(x) rather than section 5(1)(xii). However, the tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the term "tools and instruments" in section 5(1)(x) did not encompass books belonging to a lawyer. The tribunal concluded that the proper provision for granting exemption to a lawyer for the value of books was under section 5(1)(xii) based on the specific language and intent of the Act.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed all the appeals, upholding the decision to allow exemption under section 5(1)(xii) for the value of books belonging to the assessee, a practicing lawyer. The judgment clarified the distinction between tools and instruments under section 5(1)(x) and books under section 5(1)(xii), emphasizing the specific provisions and their applicability to the case at hand.