TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the special leave petitions. These appeals arise out of judgments of the High Court of Kerala rendered in Income-tax Reference Cases Nos. 28 and 37 of 1976 (see [1979] 116 ITR 135) ; 30, 60 and 63 of 1977 and 141 of 1979 by which the High Court answered the questions referred to it at the behest of the Department under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter "the Act"), in favour of the Department. On being satisfied that the questions answered by it raise a substantial question of law of general importance on which a pronouncement by this court is necessary, it certified the cases as fit for appeal to this court on prayer being made by counsel for the assessee. The question referred to the High Court read as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The material part of the section as it stood at the relevant time read as follows "Nothing contained in subsection(1) shall operate to exclude-from the net wealth of the assessee any assets referred to in clauses (xv), (xvi), (xxii), (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxxi) and (xxxii) [not being deposits under the Post Office Savings Bank (Cumulative Time Deposits) Rules, 1959], to the extent the value thereof exceeds, in the aggregate, a sum of one hundred and fifty thousand rupees : Provided that where the assets include any assets referred to in clause (xv) or clause (xvi) [not being deposits under the Post Office Savings Bank (Cumulative Time Deposits) Rules, 19591, which have been held by the assessee cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in excess of Rs. 1,50,000). In such a case, the proviso to sub-section (1A) would come into play. We have, therefore, to find out the purport of this proviso. Shri Ahuja refers to the expression "so included" used in the proviso and contends that where the asset to be included be one referred to in clause (xv) or (xvi), the value of the asset "so included" has to exceed the limit of Rs. 1,50,000, in which case alone the limit would be raised by the amount the value of this asset exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. No effective answer to this submission has been advanced by Ms. Ramachandran. Shri Ahuja, on the other hand, submits that the Kerala High Court is not the only one to interpret section 5(1A) as above inasmuch as the same view has been ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
