Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Meghaji Girdharilal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 179 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1989]177ITR297(MP)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentMeghaji Girdharilal
Appellant AdvocateR.C. Mukati, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Goyal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....in favour of the assessee. he further submitted that the view taken by the tribunal has been fortified by the full bench decision of this court in cwt v. smt. tarabai kanakmal : [1983]140itr374(mp) , wherein it has been held that by amending section 5(1)(viii) by the addition of the explanation, it is effective only from april 1, 1972. 'jewellery' will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones for any assessment years prior to april 1, 1972. 6. thus, in view of this decision and after hearing learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. our answer to the question referred is, therefore, in favour of the assessee and against the department. 7. the.....
Judgment:

P.D. Mulye, J.

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, has made this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law ;

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the extended meaning of the term 'jewellery' in view of Explanation 1 to Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, would be applicable only with effect from 1-4-72, i.e., for the assessment year 1972-73 and onwards ?'

2. It may be noted at the outset that the Tribunal has made this reference relating to the assessment year 1963-64 only, though the Revenue had also prayed for making a reference for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 also.

3. The facts giving rise to this reference as per the statement of the case received may be stated, in brief, thus ; the dispute relates to the addition of the value of gold and silver ornaments intended for household use of the respondent-assessee in the computation of her net wealth. The Wealth-tax Officer made a number of additions for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1971-72 which comprised the entire value of gold and silver ornaments held by the assessee. The assessee took up the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that gold and silver ornaments intended for the personal or household use within the meaning of Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act could not be included in her net wealth for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63. So far as the later years, now in dispute, that is 1963-64 to 1965-66 were concerned, the question before him was whether gold and silver ornaments were covered by the term 'jewellery' as used in Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that the extended meaning of the term 'jewellery' would be applicable only with effect from the assessment year 1972-73 and onwards for the reason that Explanation 1 which extends this meaning came into force only with effect from April 1, 1972. The Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after considering the entire matter, upheld the contention of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) for the detailed reasons given in its order.

4. However, this reference is made at the instance of the Revenue.

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri R.C. Mukati, frankly submitted that the Tribunal has given proper reasons for deciding the questionInvolved in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal has been fortified by the Full Bench decision of this court in CWT v. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal : [1983]140ITR374(MP) , wherein it has been held that by amending Section 5(1)(viii) by the addition of the Explanation, it is effective only from April 1, 1972. 'Jewellery' will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones for any assessment years prior to April 1, 1972.

6. Thus, in view of this decision and after hearing learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Our answer to the question referred is, therefore, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

7. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //