9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69. These amounts were included in the original wealth-tax assessment and, on a representation filed by the assessee on November 11, 197.0, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, following a decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505, deleted the inclusion of the value of the jewellery in the respective assessments for the years 1962-63 to 1968-69. Section 5(1)(viii) was amended with retrospective effect by s. 32 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, excluding jewellery from the purview of the exemption under s. 5(1)(viii) of the W.T. Act. The successor Commissioner passed a rectification order under s. 35 of the W.T. Act for the relevant years, directing the inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contemplated by s. 5(1)(viii). The Gujarat High Court accepted this contention and pointed out that cl. (xv) of s. 5(1) dealt with jewellery, which belonged to the assessee, while under cl. (viii) the test was, whether the articles were intended for the personal use of the assessee. While jewellery owned by the assessee, but not held for personal use, would come within the scope of s. 5(1)(xv), s. 5(1)(viii) was taken to have granted exemption in respect of jewellery intended for personal use. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505. Amendments came to be made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, in order to take away the effect of this decision of the Supreme Court. The amendments we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we were unable to agree. The reasons for our disagreement are found at p. 184 of 127 ITR. The result is that the problem before us is covered by the decision reported in [1981] 127 ITR 175. In the present case there can be no question of debatable error. We are dealing with the assessments from 1962-63 onwards, in all of which the value of the jewellery was added in the assessments. There was no appeal. The assessee moved the Commissioner after the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505. In fact, it was stated before the Additional Commissioner, who passed the order, that the jewellery in question were all intended for the personal use of the assessee's family and that in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1963-64, the assessee's claim was that the amended provision was not in force as on the valuation date. This claim cannot be accepted. Section 2(q) of the W.T. Act defines " valuation date " as follows: "'Valuation date', in relation to any year for which an assessment is to be made under the Act, means the last day of the previous year as defined in section 3 of the Income-tax Act, if an assessment were to be made under that Act for that year." The valuation date is thus linked to the previous year as defined in the I.T. Act. The well-settled principle under the I.T. Act is that the law applicable to any assessment is the law on the opening day of the relevant assessment year, unless any particular provision enacted later has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
