9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y an assessment order dated February 26, 1971, the assessee was assessed on a total wealth of Rs. 4,62,401. In the return, the petitioner had indicated in the column meant for jewellery a sum of Rs. 1,21,835. Since the Supreme Court had, in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505, held that jewellery was liable to be excluded from assessment under the W.T. Act, the WTO allowed an exemption o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t since there were differences of opinion among various High Courts on the question whether the definition of the term " Jewellery ", given in the Explanation added to s. 5(1)(viii), would apply to the assessment year 1965-66, a period prior to its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, the question was debatable and, hence, no rectification could validly be made under s. 35. In our opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities took it for granted that the ornaments in question were jewellery. The question of any difference of opinion is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It has not been disputed before us that, in view of the retrospective amendment in the law, " Jewellery " became liable to assessment under the W.T. Act, and in this situation the case was one of escapement from assessment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
