COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SONAL K AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The question of law referred is as follows :

(2.) THE assessee in the present - reference is Smt. Sonal K. Amin. THE assessment year is 1971-72 and the relevant valuation date is 30th October, 1970. THE WTO, by order dated 29th March, 1972, included Rs. 50,000 in the net wealth of the assessee as value of ornaments and jewellery. THE order was maintained by the AAC. THE Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal and held that the gold and silver ornaments, as distinguished from jewellery, were not includible in the net wealth being articles of personal use. THE Tribunal remanded the case to the WTO for examining the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such ornaments and to exclude their value from the net wealth. On an application made by the CWT, the Tribunal has referred the question which we have set out above.

(3.) EXPLANATION 1 set out above was not applicable for the assessment year with which we are concerned in this case. The question before us is whether the words " but not including jewellery " which were added in Clause (viii) with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1963, on a proper construction by themselves and without the aid of the EXPLANATION, cover gold and silver ornaments not containing any precious or semi-precious stones. There appears to be a sharp divergence of opinion on this question. The Gujarat, Allahabad and Punjab & Haryana High Courts have taken the view that the word " jewellery " would cover gold and silver ornaments irrespective of whether they are studded with precious stones or not and that the EXPLANATION was added as a matter of abundant caution. [See CWT v. Jayantilal Amratlal [1976] 102 ITR 105 (Guj), CWT v. Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Singh [1979] 117 ITR 246 (All) and CWT v. Rajeshwar Parshad [1975] Tax LR 194 (P & H)]. Contrary view has been taken on this point by the Orissa and Calcutta High Courts. [See CWT v. Binapani Chakraborty [1978] 114 ITR 82 (Orissa) and CWT v. Aditya Vikram Birla [1978] 114 ITR 711 (Cal)]. Having given our anxious consideration to the problem, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Orissa and Calcutta High Courts which hold the view that by itself " jewellery " does not cover gold and silver ornaments not containing precious or semi-precious stones.