CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench(1998) 03 KL CK 0015

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs P.N. VARGHESE

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 March 1998 · Citation: (1998) 150 CTR 225

HON’BLE JUDGES
Om Prakash, C.J · J.B. Koshy, J · J. B. Koshy, J
CASE NUMBER
OP No. 11665 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 367 words

OM PRAKASH, C J

Heard senior standing counsel for the Revenue.

2.

This is an application made by the Revenue under s. 27(3) of the WT Act,

1957 requiring us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question for the opinion of this Court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(x~odi) of the WT Act T''

3.

We have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal, which has found that the assessee was a partner in two firms dealing in jewellery; that these firms used to purchase old gold ornaments and hand them over to goldsmiths to manufacture new gold ornaments.'' that the assessee has produced the goldsmith vouchers showing the ornament making charges paid; weight of old gold and its purity, wastage, etc., that from the vouchers produced by the assessee, it is clear that the firms in which the assessee was a partner were engaged in the business of manufacture of new gold jewellery from old gold ornaments purchased from various people and that the goldsmiths worked under the firms'' premises.

4.

In view of the above factual background, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the firms in which the assessee was a partner being engaged in the business of manufacture of new gold jewellery from old gold ornaments are entitled to get exemption under s. 5(1)(xx) of the WT Act. Such finding recorded by the Tribunal is a clear finding of fact.

5.

The submission of learned senior standing counsel before us is that the firms in which the assessee was a partner were engaged only in polishing old gold ornaments and no new gold ornaments were being manufactured by the firms. No basis ior this argument is shown to us. On the contrary, the finding of the Tribunal is that the firms in which the assessee was a partner were engaging goldsmiths at their own premises and they made new jewellery from old gold ornaments.

6.

The finding recorded by the Tribunal being a finding of fact, no question of law arises.

The application, therefore, fails and is rejected.

OPEN