TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (2) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the total wealth of the assessee ? " The assessee was the late Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga. While computing his net assets for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act, a dispute arose, in respect of (1) the deduction from the market value of the shares held by the assessee of the brokerage commission (question No. 1), (2) complete exclusion from the assets of those ornaments and jewellery of the Darbhanga Raj which were intended for the personal or household use of the Maharajadhiraja (question No. 2), and (3) the exclusion from the total assets of any part of the amount of compensation which was not actually paid to him by the State (question No. 3). Questions No. 3.-Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha for the assessee, quite fairly, stated that, in view of a Bench decision of this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax , this question must be answered against the assessee. In that decision, it was held that, as soon as the estate, of an ex-proprietor vests in the Government under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, that proprietor is entitled to receive compensation, though the date of payment of the compensation and the manner in which it will be paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd shares would fetch in the open market. He has, however, not been able to cite any authority in support of this contention. On the other hand, the English decisions are all against him. In Green on Death Duty, 6th edition, at page 393, while discussing the principal value, of, stocks and shares for the purpose of death duty, it is observed : " The price which property 'fetches' is the gross price paid by the purchaser, without deduction for the vendor's costs and expenses." The language of the relevant statutory provision in force in Britain is : " Principal value means the price which the property would have fetched on the death of the deceased in the open market." It will be noticed that this language is very similar to section 7(1) of the Act, and the aforesaid observation would, therefore, apply with equal force. It was, however, urged that the net price which would be actually received by the seller (the assessee) should alone be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the assets. This may be an equitable view ; but, as is well-known, in constructing taxation statutes, equitable considerations are out of place. The legislature seems to have laid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s personal use. I should, however, mention here that clause (xv) of subsection (1) of section 5 has been deleted by the Finance Act, 1963 ; but we are concerned here with the law as it stood prior to that amendment. There can be no doubt that a premier zamindar in the State of Bihar as the assessee may have kept in his possession several ornaments which were intended for his personal use. It may also be true, as urged by Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha for the assessee, that some other ornaments, including precious stones, might have been kept by the assessee not for personal use but solely as capital kept in a convenient form. He, therefore, urged that the wealth-tax authorities should not have rejected totally the claim of the assessee but should have examined every item of the jewellery with a view to decide whether it was intended for personal use, and then decided whether to apply clause (viii) or clause (xv). So far as wearing apparel is concerned, there may be some difficulty. in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, Parliament took special care, while exempting such apparel, to qualify the exemption by these words : "(e) wearing apparel, bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... white paper and the report of the joint select committee thereon were referred, to while construing some provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Similarly, in Gopalan's case the report of the drafting committee was referred to " not to control the meaning of the article, but may be seen in case of ambiguity ". In the well-known In re Hamlin it was observed : " Reports of legislative committees having in charge the preparation of proposed laws may be consulted, as a source of information in the endeavour to ascertain the legislative intent, in a situation where the meaning of the statute is doubtful . Amendments or modifications of a bill, and the action of the legislature thereon, may serve as guides on the meaning of a doubtful law." When the Wealth-tax Bill was placed before Parliament (Bill No. 14 of 1957), there was no clause corresponding to clause (xv); but, on the other hand, in sub-clause (vi) of clause (5) of the Bill, " jewellery " was included as follows : "Domestic animals and furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel, jewellery, provisions and other articles intended for the personal or household use of the assessee, subject to a maximum of twenty-....