TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (10) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which was included by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis that these were jewellery is not includible in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1969-70,1970-71 and 1971-72 ?" After due consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Tribunal felt that the following question of law does arise out of the order : "Whether the word 'jewellery' in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, prior to the amendment of the section and the introduction of Explanation I by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, could take in gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them ?" Despite having felt that a question of law did arise, the Tribunal declined to make a reference to this court and rejected the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to clause (viii) of section 5(1) which was in the following language: "furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel, provisions and other articles intended for the personal or household use of the assessee." It may be stated that this clause (viii) deals with the assets which are exempted from taxation because of what has been stated in section 5(1) of the Act. The question before the Supreme Court in Arundhati's case [1970] 77 ITR 505, was whether jewellery can be said to be an asset intended for the personal use of the assessee. This question was answered in the affirmative. Clause (viii) was thereafter amended and the words "but not including jewellery" were inserted in this clause by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 by section 32 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, it is apparent, according to us, that gold ornaments could not have been brought within the fold of the Act for the purpose of realising wealth-tax. The position after April 1, 1972, would, of course, be different. In this connection, Mr. Choudhury has, however, drawn our attention to a decision of the Gujarat High Court mentioned in the A.I.R. Manual as reported in 1974 Taxation 134 (See CWT v. Jayantilal Amritlal [1976] 102 ITR 105 (Guj) ). The main decision being not before us, we have not felt it safe to take into consideration the ratio as mentioned in the Manual. Before closing, it may be stated that though Shri Choudhury has argued that the Explanation was added as a matter of abundant....