LexH.H. LAKSHMI BAI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
H.H. LAKSHMI BAI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ETC. ETC. FEBRUARY 2, 1994 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Wealth Tax Act, 1957: Section 5(1-A}-Exemption of investments in National Defence Certificates, Defence Deposit Certificates etc.-Whether could be granted over and above the limit of R.s.1,50,000 prescribed by the main provision viz. S. 5(1). The controversy in these appeals arose on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The question referred to the High Court was whether the appellant-assessee would be entitled to exemp- tion of Rs.70,000 invested by her in National Defence Certificates and A B c D Defence Deposit Certificates, which were Part of net wealth under clause (xv)/(xvi) of section 5(1) of the abovesaid Act, in addition to the overall exemption of Rs.1,50,000 granted to her under Section 5(1) of the Act. The High Court held th.lt exemption under S. 5(1A) in respect of such invest- ments could not be granted over and above Rs.1,50,000 which was the limit prescribed by the main provision viz. S.5(1) of the Act because the require- E ment of the proviso to section 5(1A) was not satisfied. Against this, the assessee preferred the present appeals. Respondent-Revenue contended that as the assets referred to in the main provision of sub-section (lA) exceeded in the cases at hand - -t- Rs.1,50,000 in the aggregate, the exemption limit could have been raised F only if the value of assets referred to in clause (xv) or (xvi) held prior to the 1st day of March, 1970 would have exceeded Rs.1,50,000 and that in such a case only, the limit of exemption provided by the main provision of sub-section(lA) could have been raised by the amount the assets men- tioned in the proviso would have exceeded the sum of Rs.1,50,000. G Dismissing the appeals, this Court · -+- HELD: 1.1. On the language of the proviso to S. 5(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 there cannot be two answers. It is settled law that taxation statute in particular has to be strictly construed and that there is no equity H 537 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R. A in a taxing provision. Though it may be true that strict interpretation of the proviso would cause hardship to small depositors as against the richer J-- ones, it has no relevance. [541-D] 1.2. Where the assets to be included be one referred in clause (xv) or (xvi) of S. 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the value of the asset "so B included" has to exceed the limit of Rs.1,50,000, in which case alone the limit mentioned in section 5(1A) would be raised by the amount the value of such asset exceeds ~.1.S,0,000. [541-A] K.S. Ayodhyanath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, 141 I.T.R. 309 C Karnataka; KS. Digvijaysinghji v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, 141 I.T.R. 313 Gujarat and Saroja Ravindran v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, 177 I.T.R. 302 Madras, approved. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2399- 2400 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1978 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. Nos. 37 & 28/76. WITH E C.A. Nos. 543(NT), 545, 544/94 C.A. Nos. 2303/80, 1370179, 2076179, F SLP. (C) Nos. 6768/79, 8002/79 and 7537/82. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1979, 6.11.1978, 5.10.1978 & 9.2.1979 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. Nos. 60/77, 61177, 62177 & 36 of 1977. Ms. Janki Ramachandran for the Appellants. B.B. Ahuja, Ms. A. Subhashini and Ranbirchandra for the Respon- dents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. Leave granted in the S.L.Ps. 1. These appeals arise out of judgments of the High Court of Kerala rendered in I.T.R. Case Nos. 28 and 37 of 1976; 30, 60 and 63 of 1977 and H 141 of 1979 by which the High Court answered the questions referred to ( H.H. LAKSHMI BAI v. COMMR. OF W. T. [HANSARIA, J.] 539 it at the behest of the Department under the provisions of Wealth Tax Act, A 1957, hereinafter the 'Act', in favour of the Department. On being satisfied that the questions answered by it raise a substantial question of law of general importance on which a pronouncement by this Court is necessary, it certified the cases as fit for appeal to this Court on prayer being.made by the counsel of the assessee. 2. The question referred lo the High Court read as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.