TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the court was delivered by G. B. PATTANAIK J. --- In this appeal by grant of certificate by the Delhi High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 948), interpretation of section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), is involved. On an application being filed under section 27(1) of the Act the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for being answered : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the buildings of the Khas Bagh Palace which were let out to different persons from whom rental income was received by the assessee were not in the occupation of the assessee within the meaning of section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the question, as already stated. The High Court in the impugned decision came to the conclusion that a restrictive interpretation of section 5(1) of the Act would disentitle the assessee to any exemption since the building in question is not under the occupation of the Ruler fully. It also came to the conclusion that a liberal interpretation of the said provision would entitle the assessee to exemption to the extent the assessee occupies the building or the portion of the building and, therefore, the liberal interpretation should be preferred. With this finding, the High Court answered the question referred to it in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residence of the Ruler cannot be included in the assets of the assessee for the purpose of determining the wealth-tax payable by an assessee. Dr. Gauri Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that in interpreting section 5(1)(iii) of the Act, the expression " in the occupation of a Ruler " has to be borne in mind and if each and every word used in section 5(1)(iii) of the Act is given its literal grammatical meaning then the only conclusion possible is that the building or the part of the building in the occupation of the Ruler and which has been declared by the Central Government as the official residence of the Ruler would be exempted under the said provision. In order to appreciate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each and every word used by the Legislature. In J. K Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1960-61] 19 FJR 436 [1961] 3 SCR 185 ; AIR 1961 SC 1170, 1174, it was observed by this court : "... the courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. " In the case of taxing statutes, it has been held by this court in several cases that one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and if the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly in the provisions of law, the subject can be taxed. This being the position, a fair reading of section 5(1)(iii) of the Act would reveal that only th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
