V E PERIANNAN Vs. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the assessment see is against the order of the Commissioner [Appeals]-IX Madras, disallowing the claim for exemption under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86.

(2.) The status of the assessee in this case in Hindu undivided family [Specified] [Resident] represented by its karta by name Shri V. E. Periannan. The assessee filed a return of wealth on 30-3-1987 admitting a net wealth of Rs. 4,91,000. While completing the assessment for 1985-86 the Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption of Rs. 12,01,916 being the investment made out of the remittance from Maur, Malaysia under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Act. On appeal the Commissioner [Appeals] confirmed the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. Hence this appeal before us.

(3.) The only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to get the exemption under section 5[1] [xxxiii] of the Wealth-tax Act. According to the assessee as long as the karta of the Hindu undivided family satisfies the criteria required by the provision, the assessee shall so have to be treated to be a person of Indian origin or a citizen who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country who had returned to India and the expression ordinarily residing in a foreign country should be equated with the term ordinarily resident used in the Income-tax Act, which expression has also been incorporated in to the Wealth-tax Act and when the karta generally resided or was domiciled in a foreign country, the assessee Hindu undivided family should be deemed to be ordinarily residing abroad. However, the learned departmental representative argued in support of the view taken by the authorities below and submitted that an analysis of the requirements of date of return of India and reference to parent or grandparent etc. of the person returning, showed that the provision was applicable only to an individual human being and if the karta of the Hindu undivided family satisfied the requirement the benefit could not be extended to the Hindu undivided family, which was a different assessee.