9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, was not entitled to exemption as claimed. In respect of the balance of the jewellery, the assessee's claim for exemption was accepted The assessments were completed accordingly. Appeals were filed against the assessment order by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter before the Tribunal on other issues. The said appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was decided on February 4, 1971, and the appeal before the Tribunal was decided on March 22, 1973. In the meantime, section 5(1)(viii) was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971. By the said amendment, jewellery was excluded from the items exempted under the said section with retrospective effect from April 1, 1963. An Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether or not containing any precious or semi-precious stone, and whether or not worked or sewn into any wearing apparel; (b) precious or semi-precious stones, whether or not set in any furniture, utensil or other article or worked or sewn into any wearing apparel. " On the basis of the said amended section of the Act, the Wealth-tax Officer proceeded to rectify the assessments under section 35 of the Act. The assessee objected to the proposed rectification contending that there was no mistake apparent from the record and that the amendment was discriminatory and otherwise bad. The contentions of the assessee were rejected. The assessments in respect of each of the said assessment years were rectified accordingly and the exemption gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that proceedings in respect of the said assessment had already been completed and were not pending before any authority. It was also contended that the right to rectify the assessment under section 35 had not become barred by limitation on the date of the amendment. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that though the appeals were filed against the assessment orders, the same were finally disposed of by March 22, 1973. The appeals were on different issues. The Tribunal held that by reason of the appeals filed against the orders of assessment, it could not be said that the assessment proceedings had been completed and were not pending before any authority on the date, i.e., August 10, 1971, when the said section 5 was amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orce, ornaments made of precious metals if the same did not contain any precious or semi-precious stone could not be considered to be jewellery and if intended for personal use would still be exempt from wealth-tax under the said section up to the date the Explanation came into force. In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the assessee relied on and cited CWT v. Aditya Vikram Birla [1978] 114 ITR 711, where it was held by a Division Bench of this court, inter alia, that before the Explanation introduced in section 5(1)(viii) came into force, the expression " jewellery " had to be construed independently of the Explanation. It was held that the dictionary meaning of the word " jewellery was not so wide as to bring within its am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the original assessments were erroneous. He also did not dispute that, in the facts of the instant case, the rectification proceedings were not barred by limitation and were permissible even though the assessments had been completed. The learned advocate for the Revenue contended on the other hand that the assessee at no point of time contended that part of her ornaments did not come within the mischief of the amended section 5(1)(viii). No evidence was adduced to show the particulars of the jewellery owned by the assessee. It was not open to the assessee to impugn the rectification proceedings on a point of fact which was not on record. The learned advocate for the Revenue drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on proceedings that part of the items of jewellery consisted of ornaments of precious metal without precious or semi-precious stones and, therefore, would still be entitled to exemption as the same were not jewellery within the meaning of the amended section. This, the assessee did not do. The assessee continued to treat all items exempted as " jewellery " and the exemption was withdrawn in respect of all the items. In our view, it is not open to the assessee to challenge the rectification proceedings on this ground. The challenge is based on a fact which is not on record. To entertain the contention of the assessee, we have to assume that the jewellery of the assessee consisted both of ornaments which did not contain any precious stones an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
