- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K.S Digvijaysinhji v. Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Rajkot.
Factual and Procedural Background
This reference arises from an interpretation of section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act") in respect of assessment years 1971-72 and 1973-74. The assessee's net wealth for the years included assets that, under clauses (xv), (xvi), (xxiii) and (xxv) of section 5(1), were treated as exempt. The value of assets covered by clauses (xv) and (xvi) for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 is recorded in the opinion; those assets were owned by the assessee from a date prior to 1 March 1970. The WTO (Wealth-tax Officer) accepted the assessee's contention that the assets covered by clauses (xv) and (xvi) were totally exempt and did not include their value in net wealth; the WTO also deducted Rs. 1,50,000 from the value of the shares and units in the Unit Trust of India in each year.
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (CWT) examined the assessment records and concluded the WTO had erred: in the Commissioner's view subsection (1A) of section 5 prescribes an overall aggregate exemption limit of Rs. 1,50,000 for the listed clauses (including (xv) and (xvi)), and the proviso raises that overall limit only where the value of assets referred to in clauses (xv) or (xvi) owned continuously from before 1 March 1970 exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. Because the assessee's assets under clauses (xv) and (xvi) did not exceed Rs. 1,50,000, the proviso did not apply. The Commissioner, exercising powers under section 25(2) of the Act, set aside the WTO's assessment orders and directed recomputation of the assessee's net wealth.
The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's view. Thereupon, at the instance of the assessee, five questions of law were referred under section 27(1) of the Act for opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the claim of further exemption under the proviso to section 5(1A) even though the proviso contemplates raising the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 when assets include assets in clause (xv) or clause (xvi) owned prior to 1 March 1970.
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the claim of raising the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 by the value of assets in clauses (xv) and (xvi) owned prior to 1 March 1970, by applying the proviso, even though the Tribunal conceded that "the limit" refers to the aggregate limit in section 5(1A).
- Whether the Tribunal's interpretation of paragraph 58 of the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 1970 is correct, given that the memorandum refers to the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 applicable to all assets contemplated in section 5(1A) and not merely assets in clauses (xv) and (xvi).
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the rule that an incentive or concessionary proviso (the proviso to section 5(1A)) ought to be liberally construed.
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in not applying the rule of construction that avoids surplusage and prefers an interpretation favourable to the subject when two interpretations are possible.
Arguments of the Parties
Assessee's Arguments
- The assessee contended that assets covered by clauses (xv) and (xvi) of section 5(1) remained totally exempt from wealth-tax despite the insertion of subsection (1A); in other words, those assets should not be subject to the Rs. 1,50,000 aggregate limit imposed by subsection (1A).
- The assessee argued the proviso to subsection (1A) effectively raises the overall Rs. 1,50,000 limit by the value of the assets falling under clauses (xv) and (xvi) which were owned prior to 1 March 1970, meaning the Rs. 1,50,000 cap would apply only to assets other than those in (xv) and (xvi).
Revenue / Commissioner's Arguments
- The Commissioner maintained that subsection (1A) prescribes an overall aggregate limit of Rs. 1,50,000 applying to all the listed clauses, including clauses (xv) and (xvi).
- The Commissioner submitted that the proviso to subsection (1A) operates only when the value of assets referred to in clauses (xv) or (xvi) owned continuously from before 1 March 1970 exceeds Rs. 1,50,000, in which case the Rs. 1,50,000 limit is raised by the amount of the excess.
- Because the assessee's assets under clauses (xv) and (xvi) did not exceed Rs. 1,50,000 in any of the assessment years, the proviso did not apply and the Commissioner therefore set aside the WTO's order and directed recomputation under section 25(2).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| CWT v. H. H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi [1979] 116 ITR 135 (Kerala High Court) | Supports the interpretation that subsection (1A)'s overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 applies to the clauses listed (including (xv) and (xvi)), and that the proviso raises that limit only where the value of (xv)/(xvi) assets owned prior to 1 March 1970 exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. | The court noted that a similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court and relied on this similarity to support its plain-reading interpretation of subsection (1A); it used the precedent to reinforce the conclusion that the proviso is only triggered when the value of the relevant (xv)/(xvi) assets exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a textual and contextual analysis of subsection (1A) of section 5. The provision was quoted and its effect explained: subsection (1A) prevents exclusion from net wealth of assets listed in a set of clauses (including (xv) and (xvi)) to the extent their aggregate value exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. The proviso was interpreted as a limited exception: where assets include any in clause (xv) or (xvi) that have been owned continuously from a date prior to 1 March 1970, and the value of such assets included in net wealth exceeds Rs. 1,50,000, then the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 is to be raised by the amount of the excess.
The court placed the provision in its legislative context: before subsection (1A) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1970 (effective 1 April 1971), assets under clauses (xv) and (xvi) were totally exempt. When the Legislature inserted subsection (1A) and added further clauses to the exempt category, it introduced an aggregate ceiling to limit that exemption. The proviso was understood as a protection for those who had acquired assets under clauses (xv) and (xvi) in reliance on the prior total exemption, but this protection applies only to cases where the value of such (xv)/(xvi) assets actually exceeds Rs. 1,50,000.
The court rejected the assessee's interpretation as contrary to the plain text of subsection (1A). Reading the assessee's submission into the statute would require rewriting the subsection and excluding clauses (xv) and (xvi) from the aggregate limit—something the court found untenable on a plain reading. The court observed that the proviso's operation is triggered only when the value of the specified (xv)/(xvi) assets owned prior to 1 March 1970 exceeds the Rs. 1,50,000 threshold. The court referenced the Kerala High Court decision noted above as adopting a similar view, thereby reinforcing the textual interpretation.
Applying that interpretation to the facts, since the value of the assessee's assets under clauses (xv) and (xvi) did not exceed Rs. 1,50,000 in any of the assessment years, the proviso did not operate to raise the overall limit. Consequently, the Tribunal's and Commissioner's approach was upheld.
Holding and Implications
The court answered all the referred questions in the affirmative and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.
Direct consequences:
- The Tribunal's and Commissioner's interpretation that subsection (1A) prescribes an overall aggregate limit of Rs. 1,50,000 applicable to the listed clauses (including (xv) and (xvi)) was upheld.
- The proviso to subsection (1A) raises that overall limit only when the value of assets under clause (xv) or (xvi) owned continuously from before 1 March 1970 exceeds Rs. 1,50,000; because the assessee's (xv)/(xvi) assets did not exceed that sum, the proviso did not apply and the assessee's broader claim was disallowed.
- The Commissioner's exercise of power under section 25(2) to set aside the WTO's orders and direct recomputation (as described in the opinion) was thereby sustained by the court's interpretation.
The opinion does not set out broader policy implications beyond affirming the statutory interpretation and the result between the parties.
1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee involves an interpretation of s. 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act"), in the light of the following facts.
2. Assessment years under reference are the assessment years 1971-72 and 1973-74. The assessee's net wealth for these years included the assets which were exempt from payment of wealth-tax under cls. (xv), (xvi), (xxiii) and (xxv) of s. 5(1) of "the Act". The value of the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) was Rs. 1,16,600, Rs. 1,27,338 and Rs. 1,28,548 for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively. These assets were owned by the assessee from a date prior to March 1, 1970. The assessment year 1971-72 and Rs. 3,28,134 in the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee also owned units worth Rs. 5,000 in the Unit Trust of India in the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The value of the shares held in the Indian companies and units in the Unit Trust of India for the assessment year 1973-74 is not available, but we are told that the value of Rs. 3,87,945 shown for "movables" in the assessment order for the assessment year 1973-74 includes the value of the above shares and units. The shares in the Indian companies are the assets covered by clause (xxiii) and units in the Unit Trust of India are covered by clause (xxv) of sub-s.(1) of s. 5. In other words, both these are exempt from payment of tax under s. 5(1). Sub-section (1A) of s. 5, however, prescribe the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 for exemption in respect of the assets covered by the various clauses including cls. (xv), (xvi), (xxiii) and (xxv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5. The proviso to s. 5(1A) lays down the if the value of the assets referred to in cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) which have been owned by the assessee continuously from a date prior to the 1st day of March, 1970, exceeds the limit of one hundred and fifty thousand rupees, the limit value of these assets exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. The contention of the assessee, however, was that the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) were totally exempt from payment of wealth-tax and the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 prescribed by sub-s. (1A) of s. 5 applies to the assets covered by the other clauses specified in the said sub-section. The WTO accepted the contention of the assessee and did not include the value of the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years under references. He also deducted Rs. 1,50,000 out of the value of the shares and units in the Unit Trust of India in each of the years under reference.
3. The CWT on examining the records of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years under reference found that the WTO had committed an error in granting exemption in respect of the value of the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) in addition to the exemption to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of assets other than those covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi). According to the Commissioner, sub-s. (1A) of s. 5 prescribes an overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000. This limit was raised only in cases where the value of the assets referred to in cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. Since the value of the assets of the assessee covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) did not exceed Rs. 1,50,000 the question of raising the limit under the proviso to sub-s. (1A) of s. 5(1) did not arise. The Commissioner, therefore, in exercise of his power under s. 25(2) of "the Act", set aside the assessment order passed by the WTO and directed him to recompute the net wealth of the assessee in accordance with law in each of the assessment years under reference.
4. The Tribunal having confirmed the view taken by the Commissioner, at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion under s. 27(1) of "the Act" ;
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the claim of further exemption under the provisions of the proviso to section 5(1A) in spite of the fact that the proviso contemplates the raising of the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 of the assets u/s. 5(1A), when assets included the assets referred to in clause (xv) or clause (xvi) which have been owned prior to March 1, 1970 ?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the claim of raising the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 by the value of the assets falling in clause (xv) and in clause (xvi) which are owned prior to March 1, 1970, by raising the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 under the provisions of the proviso even though the Tribunal having conceded that 'the limit' has reference to the aggregate limit referred to in the provisions of section 5(1a) of the Wealth-tax Act ?
3. Whether the interpretation of the Tribunal of para. 58 of the memo to the Finance Bill, 1970 is correct, in spite of the fact that the memo refers to the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000, which limit is the limit of all assets contemplated in the provisions of section 5(1a) and not merely the limit of the assets referred to in clauses (xv) and (xvi) ?
4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the rule that the object of the proviso to section 5(1A), being in the nature of an incentive or concession, it should have been liberally construed ?
5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the rule of construction that there is no surplusage or tautology in the enactment by the Legislature and each word has a meaning and when two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which is favourable to the subject should prevail ?"
5. The controversy in this reference is as regards the interpretation to be placed upon sub-s.(1A) of s. 5. Sub-section (1A) of s. 5. reads as under :
"(1A) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate to exclude from the net wealth of the assessee any assets referred to in clauses (iva), (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 on 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, 1959], which have been owned by the assessee continuously from a date prior to the first day of March, 1970, and the value of the assets so included exceeds the limit shall be raised by the said amount."
6. Sub-section (1A) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. Along with this sub-s. (1A), cls. (xxii) and (xxv), with which we are concerned, were also inserted along with other clauses in sub-s. (1) of s. 5 by the said Finance Act, with effect from April 1, 1971. Before sub-s. (1A) was inserted, the value of the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) were totally exempt from payment of wealth-tax. With the insertion of cls. (xxii) and (xxv) along with other clauses, additional assets came within the exempted category. However, while adding assets within the category of exempted assets, the Legislature put a limit or a ceiling on the exemption which was to be granted in respect of such assets. Such a limit was placed by the insertion of sub-s. (1A). Sub-section (1A) makes that the exemption in respect of the assets referred to in cls. (iva), (xv), (xvi), (xxii), (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxxi) and (xxxii) shall not be available to the extent, the value thereof exceeds in the aggregate, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. In other words, the exemption is restricted to Rs. 1,50,000 so far as value of those assets are concerned. Sub-section (1A) thus restricts and puts a limitation on the value which is exempt. The assets covered by the clauses mentioned in sub-s. (1A) would be exempt only to the extent their value does not exceed Rs. 1,50,000. Proviso to sub-s. (1A), however, carves out an exemption in so far as the assets referred to in clause (xv) or (xvi) concerned. It provides that where the assessee's assets include any assets referred to in cls. (xv) and (xvi) are which have been owned by the assessee continuously from a date prior to March 1, 1970, and the value of such assets which are included in the net wealth of the assessee exceeds Rs. 1,50,000 the limit prescribed by the substantive provisions of sub-s. (1A) shall stand raised to the extent of the excess. The overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 prescribed by sub-s. (1A) applies to all assets including those falling under cls. (xv) and (xvi), but this limit stands raised in case the value of the assets referred to in cls. (xv) and (xvi), which are owned by the assessee continuously from a date prior to March 1, 1970, exceeds Rs. 1,50,000 to the extent the value exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. This provision was made for the obvious reason that before the insertion of sub-s. (1A), the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) were totally exempt from payment of wealth-tax. It was to protect the assessee who, relying on the provisions made for total exemption in respect of the value of such assets, had made investment in such assets, that an exception was carved out and the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 was raised in case the value of such assets which were owned by the assessee prior to March 1, 1970, exceeded Rs. 1,50,000. However, the question of raising this limit would arise only in a case where the value of assets referred to in cls. (xv) and (xvi) exceeds Rs. 1,50,000. Where the value of the assets does not exceed Rs. 1,50,000, the question of raising the limit under the proviso to sub-s. (1A) would arise at all. The assessee's contention is that in a case where the assessee owns assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 prescribed by sub-s. (1A) stands raised to the extent of the value of the such assets. In other words, according to the assessee the value of the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) is totally exempt from payment of wealth-tax and the exemption limit of Rs. 1,50,000 applies to the value of the assets other than those covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi). The assessee's contention is devoid of any substance. We are unable to read anything in sub-s. (1A) which supports the assessee's contention. We would be re-writing sub-s. (1A) if we were to read it in the manner suggested on behalf of the assessee. Clauses (xv) and (xvi) are mentioned in the substantive provision of sub-s. (1A) and, therefore, the overall limit of Rs. 1,50,000 applies to these assets also but exception is made only in case of such assets which are owned by the assessees prior to March 1, 1970, and if the value of such assets exceeds Rs. 1,50,000, the limit prescribed by sub-s. (1A) is raised to the extent of the excess. No other view is possible on a plain reading of sub-s. (1A). Similar view has taken by the Kerala High Court in CWT v. H. H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi [1979] 116 ITR 135. In the instant case, admittedly the value of the assets falling under cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) did not exceed Rs. 1,50,000 in any of the years under reference and, therefore, the question of raising the limit under the proviso to sub-s. (1A) does not arise. We, therefore, uphold, the view taken by the Commissioner which was confirmed by the Tribunal.
7. In the result, we answer all the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee with no order as to costs.
Alert