Judgment :- 1. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in ITR Nos. 197 to 200 of 1979, the following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench along with the supplementary statement of the case: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also considering the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the transfer of shares effected by the assessee In favour of the donees in 1961 with an obligation to retransfer in 1969 (the same has been complied with) is irrevocable and that the shares are not assessable in the hands of the assessee?" 2. The assessment years in question are 1965-66 to 1968-69. The Wealth Tax Officer in computing the net wealth of the assessee included certain assets being shares in companies transferred by her to her parents-in-law under two instruments both dated 24-3-1961. The very same instruments had been the subject matter of consideration in the earlier assessment years and had been treated as effecting an irrevocable transfer entitling the assessee to exclude the items covered by the instruments in the computation of the net wealth. However, as a result of the amendment of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 with effect from 1-4-1965, the Wealth Tax Officer found that the instruments in question no longer qualified to be considered as effecting an irrevocable transfer of the assets covered by them. Accordingly, the Officer included those assets in the computation of the assessee's net wealth. This finding was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, confirming the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, held that an instrument could be regarded as effecting an irrevocable transfer for the prescribed period in terms of S.4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, read with the Explanation to the Section, provided it contained no provision for retransfer or reassumption of power before the expiry of the said period. The Tribunal held that the instruments in question which were executed in 1961 satisfied this requirement, notwithstanding the prevision for retransfer in 1969. 3. Counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the change brought about in the law as a result of the amendment of the Act with effect from 1-4-1965. The Tribunal held that the instruments in question which were executed in 1961 satisfied this requirement, notwithstanding the prevision for retransfer in 1969. 3. Counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the change brought about in the law as a result of the amendment of the Act with effect from 1-4-1965. Counsel submits that the expression "irrevocable transfer" contained in S.4(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, read with Explanation.(b) to the Section, means that the instrument should contain no provision for retransfer or reassumption at any time, whether before or after the expiry of the requisite period. 4. We shall now read the relevant provisions as they stood prior to 1-4-1965 and subsequently. The material part of S.4(1), as it stood before the amendment, read: "4. Net wealth to include certain assets.- (1), In computing the Del wealth of an Individual; there shall be included, as belonging to him (a) the value of assets which on the valuation date are held (iv) by a person or association of persons to whom such assets have been transferred by the individual otherwise than under an irrevocable transfer, Explanation. For the purposes of this section the expression 'transfer' includes any disposition, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement, and 'an irrevocable transfer' includes a transfer of assets which, by the terms of the instrument effecting it, is not revocable for a period exceeding six years or during the lifetime of the transferee". (emphasis supplied). The Section when read with the Explanation, as it then stood, clearly provided that an "irrevocable transfer" included a transfer which was not revocable for a period exceeding six years or during the lifetime of the transferee. Thus the transfer of an asset which, by the terms of the instrument of transfer, was not revocable for a period exceeding six years or during the lifetime of the transferee would qualify for the exclusion of that asset in the computation of net wealth under S.4(1). As a result of the assessment of 1-4-1965, the Explanation to the Section was substituted. There is no other change in the relevant provisions of the Section. As a result of the assessment of 1-4-1965, the Explanation to the Section was substituted. There is no other change in the relevant provisions of the Section. The substituted Explanation reads: "Explanation:...For the purposes of this section, (a) the expression 'irrevocable transfer' includes a transfer of assets which, by the terms of the instrument effecting it, is not revocable for a period exceeding six years or during the lifetime of the transferee, and under which the transferor derives no direct or indirect benefit, but does not include a transfer of assets if such instrument (i) contains any provision for the retransfer directly or indirectly, of the whole or any part of the assets or income therefrom to the transferor, or (ii) in any way gives the transferor a right to re-assume power directly, or indirectly, over the whole or any part of the assets or income therefrom; (c) " (emphasis supplied) 5. The question is whether the Explanation is merely clarificatory, or, whether it has brought about a fundamental change in the concept of irrevocable transfer for the purpose of S.4(1)(a)(iv). Counsel for the revenue submits that the whole concept has been altered by the insertion of clause.(i) and (ii) of the Explanation, as a result of which, according to him, any provision for retransfer or reassumption, whether before or after the expiry of the prescribed period, invalidated the instrument as an "irrevocable transfer" for the purpose of the Act. We do not agree. 6. The expression "irrevocable transfer" has in substance not changed by reason of the amendment. The object of the amendment is, in our view, clarificatory, so as to leave no doubt that the legislative latent is to treat as irrevocable only such transfers which are in truth and substance absolute and unconditional transferee for a period exceeding six years or beyond the lifetime of the transferee, and not a mere device by which the transferor retains a beneficial interest or a right to retransfer or reassumption before the expiry of the requisite period. This was, and still is, in essence the connotation of "irrevocable transfer" in the Explanation before and after the amendment. The amendment has not, therefore, altered the concept of "irrevocable transfer". If these instruments qualified as such before the amendment, the assessee is entitled to their benefit even after the amendment. This was, and still is, in essence the connotation of "irrevocable transfer" in the Explanation before and after the amendment. The amendment has not, therefore, altered the concept of "irrevocable transfer". If these instruments qualified as such before the amendment, the assessee is entitled to their benefit even after the amendment. In the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 7. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these Tax Referred Cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.