(1.) BY this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following questions of law, for our opinion :
(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this reference are these: THE assessee is an individual of Indore and the assessment year involved is 1968-69. THE assessee had originally filed a return declaring his total wealth at Rs. 1,40,054. Subsequently, he filed a revised return declaring his total wealth at Rs. 1,00,754. THE assessee made a claim before the WTO for the exemption of jewellery weighing 2,788 grams on the ground that these items of jewellery were gifted by him to his wife before his marriage. As this question is not involved in this reference, it is not necessary to narrate further facts regarding the same. THE assessee had also contended that certain ornaments of gold, which are not studded with any jewels, cannot be included in the term " jewellery " and, therefore, he is entitled to exclude them from his wealth under the provisions of Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. THE Tribunal negatived the contention of the assessee and held that the ornaments of gold even though not studded with any jewels, are included in the term " jewellery " and, therefore, are not exempted under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid questions for the opinion of this court.
(3.) IN CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the value of all the jewellery intended for the personal use of the assessee stands excluded from the computation of the net wealth of the assessee under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment as aforesaid. It seems that because of the judgment of the Supreme Court'in Arundhati's case [1970] 77 ITR 505 (SC), Parliament amended the provisions of Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act by adding the words " but not including jewellery ".