LexCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR versus SMT. BINAPANI CHAKRAVARTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR A·· v. SMT. BINAPANI CHAKRAVARTY MARCH 28, 1995 [S.C. AGRAWAL, B.L. HANSARIA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] Wealth Tax Act, 1957:Section S(i)(viii}-Wliether the word jewellery prior to the amendment of the section and the introduction of the Explanation B / by the Finance Act (No.2) of 1971 could include jewellery made of silver, C \ platinum or any other precious metal or alloy without previous or semi-pre- cious stones embedded on them-Held:Even before coming into force of the explanation jewellery would include such ornaments. The Finance Act of 2 of 1971 amended the provisions of Section 5(1) (viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 with retrospective effect from 1st of D April, 1963. By the same Finance Act of 1971, the "Explanation, however, was made effective only prospectively from 1.4.1972. It has been urged by the assessee that it is on account of Explanation 1 to Section 5(1)(viii) that the term "jewellery" could also include orna- E ments made only of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or alloy though no precious stones are. embedded in. them. It further con· tende<! that in the absence of such an Explanation during the relevant period, the term ·~ewellery" would cover only ornaments studded with jewels or precious metal or alloy. The High Court allowed the petition holding that Explanation I by Finance Act (No.2) of 1971 would not 'take F in gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded in ,.---· them. Against that order, Revenue preferred the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD :1. Undoubtedly, under s.5(1) of the Wealth-Tax Act the G Explanation has been introduced by th."e Finance Act of 1971, partly to clarify the position. The Explanation provides an extensive definition of "jewellery". It includes precious ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal whether or not containing any precious or semi-precious stones. It also covers, within the meaning of the term, such H 1183 1184 _$UPREME COURT REPORTS· [1995] 2 S.C.R. A items whicb may or may not be sewn into any wearing apparel. It also _ includes precious and semi-precious stones whether or not set itrany furniture, utensils or apparel. The Explanation may have extended the meaning of ''.jewellery" to cover, for example, precious stones by themselves or precious stones set in furniture or utensils. But in so far as it includes ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or B alloy, it is merely clarificatory in nature. Merely because ornaments made of gold and silver are now expressly included in Explanation 1, it is not possible to hold that they were earlier excluded from the meaning of the term ''.jewellery". [1188-B·D] C Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Delhi-II v. Smt. Savitri Dev~l40 ITR -~ S2S, affirmed. D Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Delhi-III v. Rukmani Dev~l42 ITR 41; Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, West Bengal-I, Calcutta v.Aditya Vikram Birla, 114 ITR 711, over ruled.. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, M.P. v. Smt. Sonal K Amin, 127 ITR 427; Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat-I v. Jayantilal Amratla~ 102 ITR 105; Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Lucknow v. His Highness Maharaja Vib- huti Narain Singh, 117 ITR 246 and Nandkishore Girdharilal Modi v. Com- E missioner of Wealth-Tax, M.P., 132 ITR 868, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1206- 1212 of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1975 of the Orissa High F Court in S.J.C.Nos. 87-93 of 1974. 'G J. Ramamurthy and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellant. The following Judgement of the Court was delivered by MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. These appeals by special leave arise from a common judgment of the High Court of Orissa in seven ~ef~rence Applications before it under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax . :A'.ct, 1957. The High Court was required to consider the following ques- tion:- H "Whether the word 'jewellery' in sectiod 5(1)(viii) of the "'.ealth- --r--- / ;r ' C. OFWELTHTAXv. SMT. B. CHAKRAVARTY [MRS. S.V. MANOHARJ.J 1185 Tax Act, 1957 prior to the amendment of the section and the A introduction of the Explanation by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 1971 could take in gold ornaments without precious or semi -precious stones embedded on them?" The High Court has answered the question thus:- "The word 'jewellery' in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.