Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - (1.) THE following question has been referred to us for our opinion at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the books owned by the assessee was exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in its entirety and not to the extent of Rs. 20,000 only within the meaning of Section 5(1)(x) of the same Act ?"
(2.) THE assessee, a leading senior advocate, then also the Advocate-General of the State of Uttar Pradesh, owned law books of the value of Rs. 28,944 for use in his profession. In his wealth-tax return for the assessment year in question, namely, 1972-73, he claimed that the value of such books was totally exempt from wealth-tax under Clause (xii) of Section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. THE Wealth-tax Officer, however, allowed him exemption to the extent of Rs. 20,000 only, treating the assets comprising such books as covered by Clause (x) under which there was then a ceiling of exemption amounting to Rs. 20,000 only. In the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer, the assessee's case was not covered by Clause (xii) of Section 5(1). Consequently, a sum of Rs. 8,944 was added to the total wealth of the assessee in the assessment of wealth-tax. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, concurring with the Wealth-tax Officer, observed that in Clause (xii) of Section 5(1), the terms "books or manuscripts" must, on the principle of ejusdem generis, be construed to refer only to works of art and collections of the category mentioned in that clause and not to the books used by the assessee for his profession. The order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer was accordingly affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal differred from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Wealth-tax Officer and held that the books in question were clearly covered by Clause (xii) of Section 5(1) and, consequently, the value thereof could not be taken into account in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal further held that the words "tools" and "instruments", mentioned in Clause (x), would not include books owned by a lawyer for use in his profession. It observed that, according to the primary and plain dictionary meaning of the words "tools" and "instruments", it was difficult to accept that the books used by an advocate in his profession are "tools" and "instruments" within the meaning of Clause (x). In the alternative, the Tribunal has observed that even if it be assumed that the books used by a lawyer are covered by both the clauses, namely, (x) and (xii), Clause (xii) being more favourable to the assessee, must be adopted on the settled rules of interpretation of fiscal statutes. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly allowed and consequential reliefs were granted to him so far as the value of the books was concerned. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the question quoted above has been referred for our opinion.
(3.) FOR the decision of the question referred for our opinion, it will be convenient to have the relevant provisions of Section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act before us : "5. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1A), wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee--... (x) the tools and instruments necessary to enable the assessee to carry on his profession or vocation, subject to a maximum of twenty thousand rupees in value ; ... (xii) any works of art, archaelogical, scientific or art collections, books or manuscripts belonging to the assessee and not intended for sale ; ..." We will begin with an analysis of Clause (xii). It is divisible into three parts ; (1) works of art ; (2) collections--archaeological, scientific or art ; and (3) books or manuscripts. It will immediately be seen that whereas the first part is confined exclusively to works of art, the second part is wider in its scope in that it takes within its sweep not only collections of art, but also those pertaining to archaeology and science. More explicitly, from pure aesthetics covered by the first, it has travelled to archaeology and science under the second part.;