Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs Poonamchand D. Shah and others

T.D. Sugla, J.—In these departmental references relating to the assessee''s wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1970-71 (Wealth-tax Reference No. 10 of 1977), 1966-67 to 1969-70 (Wealth-tax Reference No. 1977), and 1970-71 (Wealth-tax Reference No. 17 of 1977), the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion :

Wealth-tax Reference No. 10 of 1977 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rectification made u/s 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, consequent to the amendment of section 5(1)(viii) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, to include the value of jwellery was not an error apparent from the record for 1965-66 to 1970-71 assessment years ?"

Wealth-tax Reference No. 16 of 1977 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was in holding that there was no mistake apparent on the record which could be rectified and hence the provision of section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, could not be applied for 1966-67 to 1969-70 assessment years ?"

Wealth-tax Reference No. 17 of 1977 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 35 cannot be invoked to include jwellery or Rs. 2,10,000 in a view of the retrospective amendment made in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 ?"

When these references were called out for hearing none was found to appear on behalf of the respondent assessee in each case. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, stated that the assessee in each case has long been served and has undertaken to file the Department''s affidavit of service by Monday, April 15, 1991.

It has been brought to our notice that, in view of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of J.M. Bhatia, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Others Vs. J.M. Shah, , the question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. It is, however, admitted that in view of another judgement of our court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Godavaribai R. Podar, , it is only the ornaments studded with precious stones whose value is to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal that, while giving effect to our judgement, the Tribunal shall include the value of those items of ornaments/jwellery which fall within the meaning of the word "jwellery" as it stood during those years.

No order as to costs.