Plain meaning of wealth-tax proviso limits gift-based exemption and rejects rewriting text to avoid constitutional doubt.

The proviso to section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 was read according to its plain language: the phrase "for any assessment year commencing after the 31st day of March, 1964" qualified the gift-tax condition, not the commencement of the wealth-tax exemption. The statutory scheme was described as preventing avoidance of wealth-tax through transfers to a spouse or minor child, while the proviso carved out only a limited exception for transfers chargeable to gift-tax or exempt under section 5 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. A construction adopted only to avoid possible constitutional difficulty was rejected where it would contradict the text.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso to section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 exempted from inclusion in net wealth only those gifts which were chargeable to gift-tax for assessment years commencing after 31 March 1964, or whether it also covered earlier gifts once the wealth-tax exemption period commenced.

Analysis: The proviso was construed on its plain language. The words "for any assessment year commencing after the 31st day of March, 1964" were held to qualify the gift-tax condition and not the commencement of the wealth-tax exemption. The legislative scheme of section 4(1)(a) was to prevent avoidance of wealth-tax by transfers to spouse or minor child, while the proviso created a limited exception where the transfer was chargeable to gift-tax or exempt under section 5 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The Court rejected the alternative construction advanced to avoid possible constitutional difficulty, holding that where the language admits of only one meaning, it cannot be rewritten by interpretation to sustain validity.

Conclusion: The proviso did not exempt earlier gifts merely because they were chargeable to gift-tax or exempt under section 5 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958; the assessees were not entitled to exclude the transferred assets, and the Revenue's interpretation was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory language is clear, the court must give effect to its plain meaning, and a construction to avoid possible unconstitutionality cannot be adopted if it would contradict the text.

---