2003 (12) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity from levy of wealth-tax necessary for reasonably interpreting the unamended provision. - We do not therefore see any good reason to depart from the view taken by this court in the earlier decision that the Finance Act, 1988 which amended portions of the Finance Act, 1983, and extended the exemption from wealth tax, inter alia, to the value of cinema house and the value of stock-in-trade, is not retrospective. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 1-12-2003 - Judge(s) : R. JAYASIMHA BABU., S. R. SINGHARAVELU. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R. Jayasimha Babu J. The question referred is, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is ri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 84-85 the value of the motor cars which formed part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee was not exempt from wealth-tax. The view taken in all the aforementioned cases is that the amendment effected to section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, by the Finance Act of 1988 is only prospective and not retrospective. Learned counsel for the assessee here, despite those decisions, sought to contend that the value of the stock-in-trade was not includible in the net wealth, by placing reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Jodhan Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 79. That judgment, inter alia, placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which has been dissented from by this court i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Act and the amendment effected thereto by the Finance Act, 1987, which inter alia inserted a new proviso as also an Explanation held that as the Explanation was given retrospective effect, the proviso was also required to be given that effect, in order to place a reasonable construction on the section as amended. The court in that case held that: "a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation, so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole". The non-exc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X