SAHU GOVIND PRASAD Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the year 1965-66, the petitioner filed return under the W.T. Act, 1957. By 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 on the jewellery of the aforesaid amount shown as "jewellery", under Section 5(1)(viii) of the W.T. Act.

(2.) FINANCE (No. 2) Act of 1971 amended Section 5(1)(viii) by introducing the phrase "but not including jewellery". The amendment was made retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1963.

(3.) THE petitioner had himself in the return showed the possession of jewellery worth Rs. 1,21,835. THE WTO had accepted the fact that the petitioner was possessed of jewellery to that extent. Even in the present proceedings of rectification there has been no dispute that jewellery worth Rs. 1,21,835 was involved. THE petitioner did not raise any doubt or dispute that the ornaments that he possessed were not jewellery as interpreted in common parlance or that the word "Jewellery" is to be interpreted as in common parlance, and that the amendment as contemplated by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, could not give an extended meaning to the word "Jewellery" as used in the Explanation.