TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, the term 'jewellery' occurring in the words 'but not including jewellery' inserted retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1963, after the words 'articles intended for personal and household use of the assessee' in clause (viii) to section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, did not include ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any precious or semi-precious stone, and that such ornaments are includible in the term 'jewellery' after March, 1972. " In order to appreciate the controversy raised in these cases, it would be necessary to give a legislative history of the relevant provisions. The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), came into operation from April 1, 1957.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawings, paintings, photographs, prints and other heirloom and not falling within clause (xii) and not intended for sale but not including jewellery. It was further held that under section 5(1)(xv) as it stood at the relevant time, every assessee was entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 25,000 from out of the value of the jewellery in her, possession whether the same was intended for her personal use or not but under section 5(1)(viii), the value of all the jewellery intended for the personal use of the assessee stands excluded in the computation of the net wealth of an assessee. After the above decision of the Supreme Court, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, changed the position of law. Section 5 of the Act was amended to some extent and in sub-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en " jewellery " and " ornaments ". Whether it was for the purpose of (sic) canvassed by the appellants is difficult to say that when the legislature chose not to include ornaments within the meaning of the word " jewellery " retrospectively, it, in fact, meant accordingly. The only distinction that we can make out in the meaning of these two words and as sometimes commonly understood in India is that 'jewellery' has reference to those ornaments which have jewels or other precious or semiprecious stones embedded in them. In fact, the term 'jewellery' has its source from the word 'jewel'. On the other hand, 'ornaments' can be of gold or silver or any precious metal or alloy. In case they are not embedded with jewels or stones, they would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., gold ornaments not studded with precious stones are not exempted from wealth tax. There is nothing redundant or absurd in Explanation I being retrospective. The terms of the Explanation cannot take away the ordinary meaning of the word " jewellery ". The artificially enlarged meaning as extended by the prospective definition provided in Explanation I also includes by way of abundant caution the natural meaning of the term. It has apparently been included so that the common parlance meaning should not escape attention. It was thus held that gold ornaments not studded with precious stones were " jewellery " and were not exempt under section 5(1)(viii) for the assessment years in question in those cases. On the other hand, the Madhya Prades....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] 77 ITR 505 (SC) decided by the Supreme Court was distinguished and it was held that the Supreme Court in the above case did not support the wide meaning of the word " jewellery ". The Supreme Court in that case was not concerned with the question as to the meaning of the word " jewellery ", although what the Supreme Court decided in that case was that " jewellery " can also be an article of personal use. The leading cases of the High Courts taking the earlier view are CWT v. Smt. Savitri Devi [1983] 140 ITR 525 (Delhi), CWT v. Jayantilal Amratlal [1976] 102 ITR 105 (Guj) and Sahu Govind Prasad v. WTO [1983] 139 ITR 825 (All). The leading cases taking the latter view are CWT v. Binapani Chakraborty [1978] 114 ITR 82 (Orissa), CWT v. Adity....