ORDER
G. Santhanam, Accountant Member
1. These appeals are by the assessee. The point in dispute is whether the appellant is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the WT Act in respect of monies brought into India on 15-3-1980, whereas he left the foreign country on 22-4-1980 and returned to India on the same day with the intention of permanently residing in India. The Wealth-tax Officer and the first appellate authority took the view that the monies were not brought by him upon his leaving the foreign country with the intention of permanently residing in India. The appellant’s contention is that such a strict interpretation is not warranted as it is impracticable. It is further contended before us that the words within the brackets inserted by the Finance Act, 1986 with effect from 1-4-1987 should be construed as clarificatory in nature and retrospective in operation. The revenue, on the other hand, pleads for a strict construction of Section 5(1)(xxxiii) as it conferred an exemption on the assessee. It also relies on the decision of die Cochin Bench of the Tribunal dated 10-4-1987 in W.T.A. No. 232 (Coch.)/1983
2. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records. Clause 5(1)(xxxiii) of the W.T. Act as it stood at the relevant time as follows:
In the case of an assessee, being a person of Indian origin (hereafter in this clause referred to as such person) was ordinarily residing in a foreign country, who are leaving such country, has returned to India with the intention of permanently residing therein… and acquired by him out of such moneys.
Provided… to India.
In order to avail exemption it should be shown that:-
(a) the assessee is a person of Indian origin who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country and
(b) he left the foreign country for good and returned to India with the intention of permanently residing in India in which case the moneys and value of assets brought by him into India and the value of assets acquired by him out of such money would be exempt from wealth-tax for certain specified period.
3. The learned departmental representative submits that it is only the moneys and assets that were brought by such person with him on leaving the foreign country and the assets that were acquired by such moneys brought to India that would be exempt. We are not persuaded to the point of view of the revenue for taking a very narrow view of the matter. The emphasis is on the intention of a person to reside permanently in India on leaving the foreign country. In order to carry out that intention some breathing time would be necessary for him to wind up his affairs in the foreign country. For instance, he may have to arrange for his journey well in advance. He may have to arrange for the transport of his belongings to India well in advance. Similarly he may have to arrange for the repatriation of the funds to India some time in advance. These are all the necessary concomitants of his decision to return to India to reside permanently in India. Clause 5(1)(xxxiii) nowhere stipulates that exemption would be available only in respect of moneys and assets brought with him on his return to India. If the expression ‘with him’ had been used in the clause there is scope for interpreting the same on the lines suggested by the revenue. On the other hand, the user of the expression ‘by him’ would not refer to the point of time of his leaving the foreign country for return to India and it can take in its sweep such marginal time that is necessary for giving effect to the intention of the assessee to return to India for permanent settlement. Therefore, some margin of time should be considered as inbuilt in the clause to enable the person to wind up his affairs in the foreign country before he returns to India and moneys and assets that were brought into India by him during this period of preparation time would also fall within the exemption envisaged in Clause 5(1)(xxxiii) of the W. T. Act. In fact, the insertion of the words (within one year immediately preceding the date of return at anytime thereafter) with effect from 1-4-1987 if viewed in this context should be held to be clarificatory in nature and, therefore, retrospective in operation. In this view of the matter, we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 3 lakhs which was remitted by him on 15-3-1980 just a month before his return to India.
4. In the case relied on by the revenue the facts are that the assessee claimed exemption under this clause in respect of the assets brought by him or acquired out of his remittances in a period about 7 years prior to his return to India. It was on these facts the Tribunal decided the issue against the assessee and thus the facts in that case are distinguishable.
5. For all these reasons we allow the appeals of the assessee.