PODDAR G S Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the wealth -tax assessment of the assessee for the asst. year 1959 -60, for which the relevant valuation date was 31st March, 1959, the assessee claimed exemption in respect of certain gold and silver articles under S. 5(1)(viii) of the WT Act. He was allowed exemption in respect of the silver articles, but the exemption was disallowed in respect of the gold articles which were valued at Rs. 51,600.

(2.) THE question which arises for consideration on this reference under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, at the instance of the assessee, is :

(3.) THE AAC took the view that the exemption under the relevant provisions of the WT Act applied only to the normal requirements of household from day to day, and not to articles which were in the form of jewellery. He, therefore, confirmed the decision of the WTO, disallowing the exemption. In the second appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee did not persist in saying that the articles were household utensils for the personal or household use of the assessee, but contended that they fell within the expression "other articles intended for the personal or household use of the assessee" contained in S. 5(1)(viii) of the Act. That claim of the assessee was negatived by the Tribunal, although the two Members of the Tribunal put their reasons for negativing the claim on slightly different grounds. According to the Accountant Member, the expression "other articles intended for personal or household use of the assessee" used in the relevant provision must be construed ejusdem generis with the other items which were specified in the said provision, namely, furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel and provisions, and when so construed, they must be taken to mean articles which are intended for consumption as distinguished from decoration or ornamentation. According to him, the word "use" as used in the expression "other articles intended for the personal or household use of the assessee", meant "something different from ornamentation or decoration, and necessarily in the context, the use contemplated, whether it is personal use or household use, is such that the article itself is consumed by the use to which it is put". He pointed out that the assessee had clearly admitted that the articles were put in a glass show case which was kept in the drawing room, and they served not only the purpose of decoration, but as souvenirs, so that the assessee when he looked at them recalled happily the memory of the event that took place in 1945 when he was appointed a justice of peace. Having regard to the use to which the articles were put according to the assessee, the Accountant Member was of the opinion that the said use was not the personal or household use which was intended by the relevant provision. The Judicial Member was of the opinion that in order to find out whether the articles in question were intended for the personal or household use of the assessee, it was the intention of the assessee and the use to which he had actually put the articles, which was the main criterion for determining the question. Since, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had never intended to put the articles to a personal or household use and had used them only as articles of drawing -room decoration, the articles could not be regarded as being qualified for the exemption under the relevant provision. Since both the learned Members of the Tribunal were of the opinion that the articles were not entitled to exemption, they confirmed the decision of the departmental authorities, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee, they have drawn up the statement of the case, and referred to this Court the question which we have stated earlier.