COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 5 applications made under S. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to these reference applications are: that Late His Highness Maharaj Yeshwant Rao Holkar expired on 5th Dec., 1961. His Highness Maharani Usha Devi, his daughter was recognised as ruler of Indore and also the legal representative of the deceased ruler. The Wealth-tax Returns for the asst. yrs. 1957-58 to 1961-62 were furnished whereupon the assessments were made by the WTO on 31st March, 1979. In appeal, the CIT (A) set aside all these assessments and directed the WTO to make fresh assessments vide his order dt. 20th Feb., 1980. Pursuant to the direction of the CIT (A), the WTO made fresh assessments including certain assets and taking higher value thereof. The assessee went in appeal to the Tribunal which by a common order dt. 11th Nov., 1987 partly allowed the appeals deleting the inclusion of 'Heirloom Jewellery ' worth Rs. 13,80,000 . Dis-satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the Department moved applications under S. 27(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer the under noted questions said to be of law, for the opinion of this Court. The Tribunal by a common order dt. 7th March, 1989 rejected the applications. The applicant-Department has, therefore, come up before this Court under S. 27(3). The proposed, questions are these:

(3.) IN the original assessments dt. 31st March, 1979, the WTO, Indore exempted the aforesaid 'jewellery ' from assessment, in view of the CBDT's letter No. 4/1(12) /58- WT dt. 19th Sept., 1959 which recognised the said 'jewellery' as 'Heriloom jewellery' under the Wealth-tax (Exemption of Heirloom Jewellery of Rules), Rules, 1958, for the purpose of S. 5(1) (xvi) of the Act. However, pursuant to the order of the CIT (A) in appeal, the exemption was withdrawn and consequently the WTO included the value of the 'jewellery' for assessment in each assessment year. This was obviously done on account of the CBDT's circular dt. 12th Sept., 1980 whereby the exemption granted earlier by the Board was withdrawn by it. However, this Court by its decision reported in Smt. Usha Devi vs. WTO (1987) 33 Taxman 179 has quashed the aforesaid circular dt. 12th Sept., 1980 of the Board. The Tribunal while allowing assessee's appeals, has relied upon the aforesaid decision and also rejected and rightly so, the reference applications made by the Department.