COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. VIBHUTI NARAIN SINGH HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, wealth-tax returns were filed by the assessee in the status of HUF and individual separately. The WTO included the value of jewellery as assessable. This inclusion was upheld in appeal and the assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that ornaments which were studded with jewels or jems (whether imitation or genuine) would not be exempt but ornaments which are not studded as such, will be exempt from wealth-tax. The Tribunal remanded the matter for recomputation of the value of the jewellery accordingly.

(2.) AT the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion two questions:

(3.) THE Explanation made it quite clear that the term "jewellery" was taken in its wider meaning. It included ornaments whether studded with precious jewels or not. It was, however, argued that the Explanation was prospectively added. It was not available for an assessment year prior to 1972. We are unable to agree. THE phrase "but not including jewellery" was added with effect from April 1, 1963. THE word "jewellery "as commonly understood includes ornaments made of precious stones. In our opinion, the Explanation only made explicit what was implicit in the provision from its inception. This view finds support from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Jayantilal Amratlal [1976] 102 ITR 105. We are in respectful agreement with the Gujarat High Court.