P P GINWALLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:

(2.) The assessee is the sole beneficiary and executor of the will left by his wife, Mrs. Hila Ginwalla. This reference relates to the wealth-tax assessment made upon Mrs. Ginwalla in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 and 1978-79 to 1981-82, when she was alive. The facts as found by the Tribunal are as under : The assessee, while filing the returns for the aforesaid assessment years, claimed exemption of jewellery in terms of sections 5(1)(xiii) and 5(1)(viii) of the Act. The assessee showed the said value of jewellery in Part IV of the return as being assets not includible in her net wealth. In the assessee's family, as in most Parsi families, the items of jewellery belonging to the female members of the family are not intended for sale but are passed on from mother to daughter or from mother to daughter-in-law from generation to generation. In the case of the assessee, the items of jewellery were received by the assessee from her own mother at the time of her Navjote (thread ceremony) or thereafter from her mother-in-law at the time of her marriage and thereafter in respect of one or two pieces such as her engagement ring from her husband at the time of her engagement or thereafter. The said items of jewellery are not intended for sale but for passing on to the assessee's nieces (since the assessee has no children) or other female members of her family. In the premises, the assessee claimed that such pieces of jewellery constitute heirloom and are exempt under Section 5(1)(xiii) of the Act. The assessee contended further that the words "any drawings", "heirloom" appearing in the said section create an exemption ; the words "not falling . . . and not intended for sale" create an exception to the exemption. The words "but not including jewellery" exclude jewellery from the exception ; since the jewellery is excluded from the exception by the exemption, it falls within the exemption. The assessee, in particular, contended that the significant words are "but not including jewellery" and not "and not including jewellery". If the words had been "and not including jewellery" they would have created jewellery as another exception to the exemption. The assessee thus finally contended that the word "but" operates to create an exclusion from what goes immediately before, i.e., an exclusion from the exception.

(3.) Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal did not agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee.