Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs J.P. Gupta

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.—The following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal to this Court at the instance of the assessee u/s 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: 1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that books forming part of the library of an Advocate were outside the purview of ''books'' as contemplated in section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth-tax Act?

Whether, books forming part of the library of an Advocate would tantamount to books and instruments as stated u/s 5(1)(x) of the Wealth-tax Act?

The relevant provisions of the Act containing exemptions from wealth- tax in relation to certain specified assets, partially or wholly, for decision of the questions referred to us are as under:

Exemptions in respect of certain assets.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A), wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-

(i) to (ix) ****

(x) the tools and instruments necessary to enable the assessee to carry on his profession or vocation, subject to a maximum of fifty thousand rupees in value;

(xi) ****

(xii) any works of art, archaeological, scientific or art collections, books or manuscripts belonging to the assessee and not intended for sale.

The questions raised require interpretation and reasonable construction to be put on the provisions of sub-clauses (x) and (xii) of the Act quoted above. The question is whether the law books in the library of an advocate can be described as falling within the items ''tools and instruments'' as mentioned in sub-clause (x) or they fall within the terms ''books or manuscripts'' as mentioned in sub-clause (xii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act.

No doubt, an Advocate or a lawyer requires law books to ably carry on his profession. Can it, therefore, be said that the law books in his library are ''his tools and instruments''? The law books, as such, do not fall within the ordinary meaning of ''tools and instruments''.

The items ''books and manuscripts'' are included in sub-clause (xii), which are mentioned after'','' to the items preceding in that sub-clause, such as, "works of art, archaeological, scientific or art collections". It cannot be held that books and manuscripts are qualified by the adjective or take colour from the items, such as art, archaeological, scientific or art collections. The rules of ejusdem generis cannot be applied looking to the nature of the items and the manner they are enumerated in sub-clause (xii).

The assessee is an advocate and appeared for his own case. He relied on a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported in Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.N. Kacker, and another Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court reported in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. A.K. Sen, In both the above decisions, it has been held that books and manuscripts are covered by sub-clause (xii) and the rule of ejusdem generis cannot be made applicable to several items mentioned therein. Respectfully following the decisions (supra) of the above Courts for the additional reasons mentioned above, we are also of the opinion that ''books and manuscripts'' may be possessed by an Advocate or a lawyer and are not covered by the words ''tools and instruments'' mentioned in sub-clause (x). The law books of a lawyer enable him to acquire knowledge of law for carrying on his profession. They cannot, however, be termed as ''his tools and instruments'' as may be typing machines, fax machines, computers, etc., used in carrying on the profession. We are clearly of the opinion that ''books and manuscripts'' which are separately mentioned in sub-clause (xii) cannot, by implication, be included in sub-clause (x) under the words ''tools and instruments'', as in its ordinary meaning ''books and manuscripts'' are not included in those words. For the reasons aforesaid, the two questions referred are answered in negative against the department and in favour of the assessee by holding that the law books in library of an Advocate would be covered by section 5(1)(xii) and not section 5(1)(x).