Madras H.C : The question referred concerns the entitlement of the assessee who was living with her husband abroad, but had acquired assets in India from out of monies remitted to her in India by relatives, is entitled to claim exemption in respect of property acquired from out of the monies received in India under s. 5(1)(xxxiii) of the WT Act, 1957

High Court Of Madras

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Noorjahan Jamal

Sections WT 5(1)(xxxiii)

Asst. Year 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83

R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ.

Tax Case Nos. 216 to 221 of 1992

3rd July, 2001

Counsel Appeared

J. Naresh Kumar, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee

JUDGMENT

R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :

The question referred concerns the entitlement of the assessee who was living with her husband abroad, but had acquired assets in India from out of monies remitted to her in India by relatives, is entitled to claim exemption in respect of property acquired from out of the monies received in India under s. 5(1)(xxxiii) of the WT Act, 1957, for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1982-83. The Tribunal has found that the assessee was not ordinarily living in a foreign country, but was frequently visiting India, and that she had not brought assets into India, nor had she acquired assets out of monies brought into India by the assessee. Having regard to those findings, the assessee clearly was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption. Even if the assessee be regarded as a person who ordinarily lived in a foreign country, the assets in question not having been acquired from out of monies brought into India by the assessee at the time the assessee returned to India with the intention of permanently residing in India, the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of that provision. The assets owned by the assessee have been bought in India out of the monies remitted to her by others while she was in India. They were not monies which were brought by her when she returned to India after her stay of about five and half years outside the country. The Tribunal was not right in holding that she is entitled to that exemption. The question is answered accordingly against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue.

[Citation : 255 ITR 287]

Malcare WordPress Security