Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 128 of 1978
Judge
Reported in(1983)33CTR(MP)238; [1984]146ITR512(MP)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1) and 35
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentSmt. Tarabai Kanakmal
Excerpt:
- .....: [1983]140itr374(mp) ), has held that for assessment years prior to 1st april, 1972, jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones within the meaning of section 5(1)(viii).3. in accordance with the opinion recorded by the full bench on question no. (2), we hold that for assessment years prior to april 1, 1972, jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones.4. question no. (2) is answered accordingly. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Shukla, J.

1. Following two questions were referred to this court under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore :

'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law that even when the provisions of Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act, as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, were made restrospective in operation with effect from April 1, 1963, the value of the gold ornaments and jewellery exempted from tax liability could or could not be included in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Act ?

(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for the assessment year 1967-68, the expression 'jewellery' was susceptible, of different meanings and there was no clear cut connotation of that expression for that year ?'

We had answered question No. (1) in the negative, vide order dated March 9, 1982, and had held that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was no rectifiable mistake apparent from the record in the order of the AAC and that the AAC had no jurisdiction to take action under Section 35 of the W.T. Act.

2. As regards question No. (2) we had noticed two conflicting decisions of this court and had referred the same for decision by a larger Bench. The Full Bench by its order dated August 6, 1982 (CWT v. Tarabai Kanakmal : [1983]140ITR374(MP) ), has held that for assessment years prior to 1st April, 1972, jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones within the meaning of Section 5(1)(viii).

3. In accordance with the opinion recorded by the Full Bench on question No. (2), we hold that for assessment years prior to April 1, 1972, jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones.

4. Question No. (2) is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.


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