1. ' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-- These two references are in respect of the same respondent for the assessm ent years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The only question referred to us under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1963 is as follows:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of motor cars under clause (vi) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act"?
2. ' The facts are not complicated. Respondent as an individual had filed Wealth-tax return and claimed exemption in respect of motor cars under section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Wealth- tax Officer held that motor cars not being the articles of household use, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators etc. Installed in residential house did not qualify for exemption under the aforesaid law.
3. ' The respondent appealed before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal accepted the appeal and held that the respondent was allowed to claim exemption in respect of the motor cars for personal use and their value was not to be added in the wealth.
4. ' The relevant provision of law is reproduced hereunder:: "5. Exemption in respect of certain assets--(1) 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 (v) .............
(vi) furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel, provisions and other articles (excluding jewellery) intended for the personal or household use of the assessee:- Provided that, where the assessee owns a car the market value of which exceeds rupees one lakh, the value of such car in excess of rupees one lakh shall not be so excluded from his net wealth.
(vii) to (end). .............. .......
5. ' Before construing the above provision of law we may point out here that the proviso to clause (vi) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1963 as reproduced above did not exist in 1970 and, therefore, that proviso has to be left out of the consideration.
6. ' What is important in clause (vi) of section 5(1) is that the furniture, household utensils, wearing apparel and provisions have been completely excluded for the purposes of computation of wealth under Wealth-tax Act. The next inclusion in this clause is of other articles (excluding jewellery) which are intended for the personal or household use of the assessee. It is, therefore, obvious that if there is any article which is intended for the personal use of the assessee then it would be entitled to be exempted from being computed as an item of wealth.
7. ' We found from the order of the I.-T .0. That he has added the value of motor cars on the ground that the motor cars could not be an article intended for the personal use of the assessee and the articles ranking for exemption would be only articles of household use namely air-conditioner installed in the residential house. As against that the Appellate Tribunal has considered the provisions of section (2)(m) defining 'Net Wealth' as including assets required to be included in his net wealth. And thereafter it has taken into consideration section 5(1)(vi) which has excluded certain items from being excluded in the wealth. The Appellate Tribunal has analysed the order of the I.-T.O. And has inferred that I. -T .0. Has read the words 'intended for the personal or the household use of the assessee' in conjunction with each other. While in fact the use of the word "or" between the words "personal" and "household" do point out that these two words have to be read disjunctively. What was to be considered was whether the car in question could be considered as an article or not and obviously a car is an article and thus it could be construed as an article.
8. Further consideration was whether the car was intended for personal use of the assessee. There is no discussion in the order of the I.-T .0. About this aspect of the case. The assessee respondent had filed an individual return and he was. Therefore, claiming the car on account of personal use. In any case there is nothing before us to suggest that the cars of the respondent were not meant for the personal use of the assessee and the order of the Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the cars were intended to be for the personal use of the assessee. Such being the position in the case we are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is correct in the circumstance of the case. The Taxation Law has to be construed in favour of the subject and, therefore, if there was any ambiguity in the expression "article intended for personal use", then the benefit of that ambiguity, if any, should to go the assessee. In the present case the assumption made by the Appellate Tribunal does not appear to be completely unfounded that cars were for the personal use of the assessee respondent and, therefore, the order appears to be justified.
9. ' We may point out that in 1976 a provision had been made that only one car was to be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee and in 1979 that provision was replaced by another provision to the effect that only a car of the value of Rupees upto one lakh was to be excluded from the wealth of the assessee and in case the value of a car was more than one lakh then the balance above one lakh was to be treated as the wealth of the assessee. These later amendments to clause (vi) of section 5(i) are not being used by us for the purpose of interpreting the clause as it existed in 1969-70 but in any case these amendments, which were introduced in 1969 and in 1979 do indicate that the Legislature treats a car for the personal use of the assessee as eligible for exemption under Article 5(1)(vi) now. This is indicative of the intention of the Legislature, and in case it was found necessary it could be used as an aid in the interpretation of the provisions which are before us. Consequently the reference is answered in the affirmative.