ORDER
1. Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in the case on hand.
2. Assessee is a limited company. While completing the wealth tax assessment, Wealth Tax Officer brought the value of 'Jeep' to wealth tax which was claimed by the assessee as exemption. The assessee claimed that 'Jeep' is not a motor car. Wealth Tax Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner rejected the case of the assessee. The Tribunal, in second appeal, accepted the case of the assessee and ruled that 'Jeep' is not a motor car. In the circumstances, a reference was sought for and reference is made with regard to the following question of law:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the word 'Motor Car' used for the purpose of levy of Wealth Tax on company would not comprehend 'Jeep'?
3. The respondent, despite notice, has not chosen to enter appearance.
4. The short question that arises for our consideration is 'whether 'Jeep' can he termed as a motor car for the purpose of tax in terms of Wealth Tax Act, 1957?
5. Both the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Commissioner have held in favour of the revenue. The Tribunal has rejected the case of the revenue by holding that in common parlance, motor-car and Jeep are two distinct things and it will be erroneous to say that Jeep is a motor car.
6. Let us see as to whether this finding of the Tribunal is acceptable in law or not in the case on hand.
7. A division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Agricultural Income Tax v. Good Hope Plantation : [1988]170ITR173(Ker) has chosen to hold as under:
In common parlance, a jeep is understood as a sturdy motor car. That is the meaning given to the word 'jeep' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is in harmony with the definition of 'motor car' under Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, the expression 'motor car' in entry III-B(i) of the statement under Rule 9 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1951 includes a jeep for the purpose of deduction under Section 5 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950.
8. Recently, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Roadways Limited v. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax (2001) 251 ITR 212 has chosen to hold as under:
The term 'motor car' applies necessarily to a vehicle, one which moves with the aid of power, whether mechanical or electrical. The Income tax Act merely refers to a motor car and does not mention any other motor vehicle. That term in the Act is meant to be an all inclusive term meant to encompass all vehicles, which can properly be regarded as 'motor cars' in a broad sense. The absence of a definition in the enactment does not come in the way of such a construction.
In a taxing statute, whenever the court finds ambiguity, it would generally lean in favour of the assessee.
The object of including motor cars in Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 was to refer to motor cars as 'assets' which are required, to be taken note of while computing the net wealth of closely held companies. 'Assets' referred to in the relevant provision cover a wide spectrum starting from gold covering precious stones, metals, lands, buildings, debts as also motor cars. Similarly, in the context in which the term is found in the provision it is meant to cover all motor vehicles other than heavy vehicles, such as lorries and buses. Hence, the term 'motor car' includes jeeps.
9. We are in agreement with the judgments of both Kerala High Court and Madras High Court. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to answer the question of law in favour of the revenue and against assessee. Ordered accordingly. No costs.