Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Doubting correctness of the judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. V.P. Gopinathan v. C.W.T., 1997(1) KLT 291 = ((1996) 221 ITR 401), reference was made to Full Bench. Order for reference was made by the Division Bench while considering a reference under S.27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (in short Act). Following question was referred to by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short Tribunal):

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the Tribunals own decision in the case of Dr. V.P. Gopinathan (WTA Nos. 58, 59 & 60 (Coch)/85 dated 11.6.1988), the assessee is entitled to exemption under S.5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957"

2. Factual position is as follows: Assessee, an individual, though a citizen of India, was resident of Kuwait for a long time. He is a partner in M/s. Haji M.K. Abdul Khader & Co., a partnership firm, which runs a hotel called Paramount Tower in Calicut. Valuation Officer determined fair market value of the hotel building at Rs. 86,28,000/. as on 31.3.1984, and that of plant and machinery including electrical installations at Rs. 13,66,200/-. Assessee, being a partner in the said partnership firm, Assessing Officer computed value of assessees share in the interest of the firm and consequently enhanced returned figure of wealth by Rs. 20,87,448/-. Assessee claimed that entire wealth was exempt under S.5(1)(xxxiii) of the as investments made in India were out of remittances made by him from abroad. Assessing Officer refused the claim on the ground that exemption would not be available in respect of amounts brought prior to his return to India. Matter was challenged before Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Calicut (in short CWT (A)), who held that assessee would be entitled to exemption under the aforesaid provision. Revenue carried matter in appeal before Tribunal which affirmed views of CWT(A). It was noticed by Tribunal that in some of the cases different view had been taken by it and, therefore, made a reference. When the matter was heard by Division Bench, reliance was made by learned counsel to Dr. Gopinathans case (supra) which supports the view taken by Tribunal. Learned counsel for Revenue, with reference to the provision itself, submitted that position is clear that it is only money and value of assets brought by the assessee into India at the time of his return with the intention of permanently residing in India which qualifies for exemption and not any other amount. Learned counsel for respondent-assessee, however, submitted that such a narrow interpretation is not in line with the legislative intent and in any event decision of this Court has correctly taken note of the position.

3. The provision at the relevant time relating to assessment year reads as follows: "Exemptions in respect of certain assets:

5(1): Subject to the provisions of sub-s.(1A), 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

XXX XXX XXX XXX

(xxxiii) in the case of an assessee, being a person of Indian origin who was originally residing in a foreign country and who, on leaving such country, has returned to India with the intention of permanently residing therein, money and the value of assets brought by him into India and the value of the assets acquired by him out of such moneys:

Provided that this exemption shall apply only for a period of seven successive assessment years commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such person returned to India.

xxx xxx xxx xxx"

4. Learned counsel for assessee submitted that amendment brought in by Finance Bill of 1986, which operates with effect from 1.4.1987, throws considerable light on the controversy. By the amendment, in the opening paragraph, after the words "out of such moneys", the words "within one year immediately preceding the date of his return and at any time thereafter" has been inserted along with two explanations. Clarification notes and clauses show that under the pre-existing provisions, in the case of an assessee being a permanent person of Indian origin or a citizen of India who has returned to India with the intention of permanently residing in India, moneys and value of assets acquired by him out of such moneys within one year preceding the date of his return at any time thereafter will qualify for exemption and will not be included in the net wealth of such person. Exemption will-, however, be limited to a person of seven successive assessment years commencing with assessment year next following the date on which such person returned to India. Item (B) in respect of clause 40, sub clause a(u) of the Notes sought to clarify that moneys outstanding in the credit of the person to whom the clause in the is applicable in a Non-Resident (External) account in any bank in India in accordance with Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and any rules made thereunder on the date of his return shall be deemed to be moneys brought by him into India on that date. This amendment was operative retrospectively from 1.4.1977 and relatable to assessment year 1977-78 and subsequent years.

5. Assets etc., brought into India by persons of Indian origin or by citizens of India - S.5(1)(xxxiii), newly inserted by the Finance Act, 1976, with effect from 1.4.1977, grants exemption, for and from assessment year 1977-78, to an assessee, being - a person of Indian origin (as defined in Explanation I) or a citizen of India, who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country and who leaving such country, has returned to

India with the intention of permanently residing in India. The exemption to an eligible assessee is, for assessment years 1977-78 to 1986-87, in respect of moneys and the value of assets brought by him in India and the value of assets required by him out of such moneys. However, for and from assessment year 1987-88, the scope of such exemption has been broadened also in respect of moneys and the value of assets brought by the eligible assessee in India and the value of assets acquired by him out of such moneys within one year immediately preceding the date of his return. Explanation 2 to S.5(1)(xxxiii) (which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1986 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1977) clarifies that moneys standing to the credit of an eligible assessee in a Non-Resident (External) account in any bank in India in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and any rules made thereunder on the date of his return to India, shall be deemed to be moneys brought by him into India on that date. Earlier, a Department Circular No. 411 dated 25.2.1985 has clarified the same position in the absence of a statutory provision in that regard. Such exemption is available only for a period of seven successive assessment years commencing with the assessment year next following the date on which such eligible assessee returned to India. Thus, where an eligible assessee has returned to India on 1.1.1978 and brought eligible assets into India, he will be entitled for exemption for assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85 in respect of the eligible assets.

6. According to Mr. P. Balachandran, learned counsel for assessee that three categories of assets are covered by the provisions. They are: (1) remittances made earlier to return of assessee, (2) money and value of assets brought by him into India, and (3) investments after arrival by way of acquisition and all the three categories are eligible for exemption. According to learned counsel for Revenue, on the other hand, only second and third categories are exempted. Before addition of expression "within one year immediately preceding the date of his return and at any time thereafter" and explanation 2 which were simultaneously inserted by Finance Act 1986 (Act 23/86) with effect from 1.4.1987 and 1.4.1977 respectively, the position appears to be in line with stand taken by revenue. A bare reading of the provision would make it apparent that what was exempted in respect of an assessee was moneys and value of assets brought by him into India and value of assets acquired by him out of such moneys. "Such moneys" obviously relates to moneys and value of assets brought by him into India. Expression "moneys and value of assets brought by him" precede the expression "out of such moneys". It is relatable to moneys brought by him into India when he returns from foreign country with the intention of staying permanently. Requirement seems to be that (a) a person of Indian origin as defined in Explanation (1) or a citizen of India, who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country; (b) who on leaving such country has returned to India with the intention of permanently residing here; (c) moneys had been brought by him into India and (d) assets have been acquired out of such moneys. There is another significant expression used, ie., "on leaving such country has returned to India". Therefore, the expression "moneys and value of assets brought by him into India" is also relatable to the factum of assessee leaving the foreign country and returning to India. The inevitable conclusion is that only money brought by assessee at the time of leaving foreign country and value of assets acquired by him out of such money qualifies for exemption.

7. It is stated that from subsequent addition with effect from 1.4.1987 a different intention is inferable. As observed by Apex Court in Haripad Shivshankar Shukla v. A.D. Divelkar (AIR 1957 SC 121 [LQ/SC/1956/105] ) and Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. C.I.T., Bombay (AIR 1967 SC 193 [LQ/SC/1966/131] ), legislation founded on a mistaken or erroneous assumption has not the effect of making that law which the legislature had erroneously assumed to be so. Court will disregard such a belief or assumption and also the provision inserted in that belief or assumption. A later statute, therefore, is normally not used as an aid to construction of an earlier one. (See: Dharangadhar Chemical Works v. Dharangadhar Municipality- AIR 1985 SC 1729 [LQ/SC/1985/277] ). However, when an earlier Act is truly ambiguous, a later Act may in certain circumstances serve as a parliamentary exposition of the former. The position was succinctly stated in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC ((1921) 2 KB 403 (CA)) (quoted in Jogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1969 SC 1089 [LQ/SC/1969/77] ), by Lord Sterndale as follows:

"I think, it is clearly established - that subsequent legislation, on the same subject may be looked to in order to see what is proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous. I quite agree that subsequent legislation, if it proceeds upon an erroneous construction of previous legislation, cannot alter that previous legislation, but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation, then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier."

There is no necessity to deal with that question in view of the clear and unambiguous language used in the statute for the assessment year with which we are concerned.

8. The decision in Dr. V.P. Gopinathans case (supra) does not state the position in law correctly and is accordingly over-ruled.

Question referred to is to be answered in the negative in favour of Revenue and against assessee.