9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to political developments in that country all the four brothers migrated to India in December 1970 with the intention of permanently settling down here. They also brought moneys accumulated in Kenya as and when released by the Central Bank of Kenya and other assets. Among the claims before the WTO in the course of the assessment proceedings was that the assessee was entitled to the claim of exemption as laid down under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') on the value of the assets and moneys brought into India and the value of assets acquired out of such moneys. The WTO, however, held that the exemption applied only for a period of seven years commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment years commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such person returned to India. In these circumstances, according to Shri Iyer, simply because for the assessment year 1971-72 the assessee was not only entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) he was also entitled to the other exemption under section 6 on the ground of being a non-resident did not mean that the period of exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) should be extended by one year by excluding the assessment year 1971-72 in computing the period of seven years for which the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) was available. Proceeding further he submitted that where the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous it was not necessary or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , i.e., assessment year 1971-72 was less than 182 days they were non-resident for the assessment year 1971-72. This meant that for the assessment year 1971-72 the value of the assets located outside India were not to be taken into account as provided by section 6 and the value of the assets or money brought into India were entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii). If in these circumstances no assessment was made or no assessment could be made for the assessment year 1971-72, this does not mean that the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) was not available to the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72. We have the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shahzada Nand Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing the date of which such person returned to India. In these circumstances, simply because such person was also entitled to the exclusion of assets outside India in computing his net wealth on account of being a non-resident in India for the assessment year 1971-72 as laid down under section 6 can be no justification for extending the period of seven successive assessment years commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such person returned to India by one more year. Considering all this and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the exemption as laid down under section 5(1)(xxxiii) on the value of the assets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
