Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 1388 1992 SLD 1388 (1992) 194 ITR 218
Calcutta High Court

AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Rajendra Kumar Sethia

v.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Exemption - Work of art - Assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80 - Whether ordinary piece of jewellery meant for personal use and which, by its very nature, is liable to be sold whenever such occasion arises, can be regarded as work of art and exempted under section 5(1)(xii) - Held, no Interpretation of statutes - Aids to construction - History of legislation FACTS For the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80, the assessee claimed that certain jewellery owned by him was exempted under section 5(1)(xii) on the ground that it consisted of works of art. The WTO negatived the assessee's claim. On appeal, both the AAC, and subsequently the Tribunal, upheld the WTO's action. On reference: HELD One of the external aids to construction is the history of legislation. Regard must be had not only to the words used in the statute but also to the history of the legislation. Looking at the history of the legislation regarding the exemption for jewellery, it would be evident that the Legislature had made its intention clear that ornaments made of gold and/or any precious metals would not qualify for exemption under section 5(1). There was no dispute about the fact that the jewellery belonging to the assessee consisted of ornaments made of gold and/or precious metals. The contention of the assessee that since by section 5(1)(xii) jewellery has not been specifically excluded, jewellery being a 'work of art' should be entitled to exemption, could not be accepted in view of the fact that the Legislature intended that jewellery as such would not be eligible for exemption. Where the Legislature intended that exemption would be allowed to jewellery, it had made provision therefore, e.g., in section 5(1)(xii) exemption had been allowed in respect of heirloom jewellery of a Ruler. In view of this, jewellery having been considered separately, it would not come within the purview of 'work of art'. Even assuming that a piece of jewellery is a 'work of art' and comes within the purview of section 5(1)(xii), it cannot be an ordinary piece of jewellery which is meant for personal use, and which, by its very nature, is liable to be sold whenever…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492