Case: H. H. Maharaj Rana Hemant Singhji, Dholpur Vs. Commissloner Of Income-Tax, Rajasthan

him;"The expression "personal use" occurring in clause (ii) of the above quoted provision is very significant. A close scrutiny of the context an; which the expression occurs shows that only those effects can legitimately be said to be personal which pertain to the assessses person. In other words, , an intimate connection between the effects and the person of the assessee must be shown to exist to render them "personal effects".The enumeration of articles like wearing apparel, Jewellery, and furniture mentioned by way of illustrations in the above quoted definition of "personal effects" also shows that the Legislature intended only those articles to be included in the definition which were intimately and commonly used by the assessee.The meaning assigned to the expression "personal effects" m various dictionaries also lends support to this view. In the Unabridged Edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language at page 1075, the expression is given the following meaning: -"Personal effects, privately owned articles consisting chiefly of clothing, toilet items etc. for intimate use by an individual".In Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition at Page 1301, the expression is assigned the following meaning:"Personal effects. Articles associated with person, as property having more or less intimate relation to person of possessor;"In Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, Third Edition, at page 832, the expression "personal effects without qualifying words is interpreted to include generally such tangible property as is worn or carried about the person.In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition), Volume 32 at page 277 it is stated that the words "personal effects" when used without qualification, generally include such tangible property as is worn or carried about the person, or to designate articles associated with the person. At another place at the same page, it is stated that the words "personal effects" are used to designate articles associated with person, as property having more or less intimate relation to person of possessor or such tangible property as attends the person.6. Bearing in mind the aforesaid meaning assigned to the expression in various dictionaries and cases the silver bars or bullion can by no stretch of imagination be deemed to be "effects" meant for personal use. Even the sovereigns and the silver coins which are alleged to have been customarily brought out of the iron safes and boxes on two special occasions namely, the Ashtmi Day of Sharadh Pakh for Maha Lakshmi Puja and for worship on the occasion of Diwali festival can not also be designated as effects meant for personal use. They may have been used for puja of the deities as a matter of pride or ornamentation but it is difficult to understand how such user can be characterised as personal use. As rightly observed by the Income Tax authorities if sanctity of puja were considered so essential by the asses see, the aforesaid articles would not have been delivered by this guardian to the Banks for sale.The language of section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 which is pari materia with the definition of the expression "personal effects" as given in section 2(4A) (ii) of the Act is also helpful in cons truing the latter provision. That provision runs as follows:-"5. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), 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............................(viii) furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel, provisions and other articles intended for the personal or household use of the assessee but not including jewellery;"7. In S. Poddar v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay City-II(I.L.R. [1965] Bom.1062.) where the assessee at the time of his appointment in the year 1945 as a Justice of the Peace was presented with two gold caskets, a gold tray, , two gold glasses, a gold cup, saucer and spoons, and photo frames as souvenirs by the dealers and brokers in cloth with whose business he was connected and he kept these articles in a glass show case for display in his drawing room and in assessment year 1959-60 claimed exemption in respect of these articles under the above quoted provision i.e. under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, it was held that merely because the gold caskets were kept in the show case did not make them part of the furniture and the rest of the articles could not be considered to be household utensils as that expression did not embrace within its sweep gold articles meant for ornamental use for special occasions but meant household articles which were normally, ordinarily, and commonly so used. It was further held in this case that the use as a decoration in the drawing room which is only calculated to give a pride of possession is not contemplated by the exemption and that the personal use which is contemplated by the exemption is the use of like nature as the use of other items mentioned in the clause, namely, furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel and provisions. It was further held in that case that the expression "intended for personal or household use" did not mean capable of being intended for personal or household use. It meant normally, commonly, or ordinarily intended for personal or household use. This in our opinion is the true concept of the expression "personal use".It is also significant that no exemption on behalf of the assessee was claimed in respect of the aforesaid effects under the aforesaid provision of the Wealth-Tax Act.The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v. Arundhati Balkrishna ( supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Desai is of no assistance to the appellant as the point now sought to be agitated before us was never canvassed or considered in that case.8. We are, therefore" of the considered view that the aforesaid articles were capital assets and not personal effects as contended on behalf of the assessee-appellant and as such could not be excluded while computing the gains.9.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In S. Poddar v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay City-II(I.L.R. [1965] Bom.1062.) where the assessee at the time of his appointment in the year 1945 as a Justice of the Peace was presented with two gold caskets, a gold tray, , two gold glasses, a gold cup, saucer and spoons, and photo frames as souvenirs by the dealers and brokers in cloth with whose business he was connected and he kept these articles in a glass show case for display in his drawing room and in assessment year 1959-60 claimed exemption in respect of these articles under the above quoted provision i.e. under section 5(1)(viii) ofthe Wealth Tax Act, 1957, it was held that merely because the gold caskets were kept in the show case did not make them part of the furniture and the rest of the articles could not be considered to be household utensils as that expression did not embrace within its sweep gold articles meant for ornamental use for special occasions but meant household articles which were normally, ordinarily, and commonly so used. It was further held in this case that the use as a decoration in the drawing room which is only calculated to give a pride of possession is not contemplated by the exemption and that the personal use which is contemplated by the exemption is the use of like nature as the use of other items mentioned in the clause, namely, furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel and provisions. It was further held in that case that the expression "intended for personal or household use" did not mean capable of being intended for personal or household use. It meant normally, commonly, or ordinarily intended for personal or household use. This in our opinion is the true concept of the expression "personal use".It is also significant that no exemption on behalf of the assessee was claimed in respect of the aforesaid effects under the aforesaid provision of the Wealth-Tax Act.The decision of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v. Arundhati Balkrishna ( supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Desai is of no assistance to the appellant as the point now sought to be agitated before us was never canvassed or considered in thatare, therefore" of the considered view that the aforesaid articles were capital assets and not personal effects as contended on behalf of the assessee-appellant and as such could not be excluded while computing the gains.