9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee ? It is conceded by counsel for the applicant that the first question is no longer res integra. It is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. P. N. Sikand [1977] 107 ITR 922. In accordance with the said decision, the first question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. This would mean that 50 per cent. of the unearned increase in the value of the land would be diverted to the lessor before it reached the hands of the assessees as part of the price. In these circumstances, question No. 2 does not arise. In the case of Smt. Savitri Devi a further question has been raised pertaining to gold ornaments and silver utensils. The value of the gold ornaments and silver utensils possessed by her during the relevant assessment years is as follows: Asst. Year Value of gold Value of silver ornaments (Rs.) utensils (Rs.) 1964-65 7,930 3,750 1965-66 8,723 3,990 1966-67 10,462 5,040 1967-68 11,498 4,970 1968-69 7,229 5,997 1969-70 8,283 5,580 1970- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly of, nor contain (whether by way of embedding, covering or otherwise), gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or any alloy containing one or more of such precious metals: Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this clause and clause (xiii), jewellery includes (a) ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or any alloy containing one or more of such precious metals, 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." As the above-noticed Explanation and proviso are prospective and came into effect only from 1st April, 1972, they are not really relevant for the purposes of the assessment years before us. But they have been set out in order to appreciate the arguments. As such, it is only with the words but not including jewellery " (which have been given retrospective effect) that we are concerned. They were introduced, as is well known, to counteract the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... common parlance especially in India would certainly include ornaments for personal adornment that are made from gold irrespective of whether they are studded with precious stones or not. When an Indian girl talks of her jewellery, she certainly means to include therein her gold bangles, chain, anklets, etc., even though they are not studded with precious or semi-precious stones. The difference sought to be made out between the two appears to us to be artificial. We are also supported in our view by certain decisions of the Punjab Haryana, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts. In CWT v. Rajeshwar Prashad [1975] Tax LR 194 a Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court held that jewellery is not a term of art. What has to be seen is whether the articles fall within the ambit of the term " jewellery ". If the ornaments are of gold and are meant for wearing on the person, they would be jewellery within the meaning of cl. 5(1)(viii); no playing on words would take them out of that category; their value cannot be excluded from the assets of the assessee. In CWT v. Jayantilal Amratlal [1976] 102 ITR 105, the Gujarat High Court has held that the natural meaning of the term " jewelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed in various local languages has to be considered. In Hindustani and Bengali at least a clear distinction has been made between ornaments which are made of gold or silver or ornaments which are set with stones. The court felt that if they accepted the contention of the Revenue that the ordinary meaning of the term " jewellery " always included all ornaments made out of precious metals with or without stones then the introduction of Expln. I to s. 5(1)(viii) with prospective effect would be redundant and absurd. It felt that if the Explanation was clarificatory and added for reasons of greater caution then it should have been made retrospective as was the main amendment and not prospective. In CWT v. Smt. Sonal K. Amin [1981] 127 ITR 427, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has followed the decisions of the Orissa High Court in Binapani Chakraborty [1978] 114 ITR 82 (Orissa) and the Calcutta High Court in Aditya Vikram Birla [1978] 114 ITR 711(Cal). We do not agree. We feel that the word " jewellery " as set out in the dictionaries as above-noticed and as understood in common parlance, certainly includes gold ornaments. Gold ornaments made for personal use are almost always a j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
