JUDGMENT N. Venkatchala, J.—In these references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the question which requires our answer is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act even though the assessee had come to India before 1-4-1976 (sic) ?" 2. The facts giving rise to the above question briefly stated are : One Dr. Advocate Ram A. Joshi is a person of Indian origin who was residing in a foreign country. However, in June, 1972, he returned from the foreign country to India with the intention of permanently residing in India. He possessed money and assets brought by him from the foreign country into India and assets acquired by him in India out of the money so brought. When he filed returns of wealth-tax for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, before the concerned Wealth-tax Officer, he claimed exemption in respect of the said assets under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By his order of assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer allowed the exemption claimed by the assessee. But, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax purporting to exercise his suo motu power under section 25(2) of the Act, set aside the order of assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer and remitted the matter to him with a direction that the assessments shall be redone disallowing the exemption which had been granted by him to the assessee earlier. The said order was challenged by the assessee in appeals - I.T.A. Nos. 39 and 40/Bangalore/1981 filed before the Income Tax Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. Those appeals came to be allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax came to be cancelled. However, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the Tribunal framed the question already set out and has sent the same to this court for being answered by this court. Since our answer to the said question would depend upon the construction to be placed by us on clause (xxxiii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, we shall excerpt the same : "5. Since our answer to the said question would depend upon the construction to be placed by us on clause (xxxiii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, we shall excerpt the same : "5. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (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 - ..... (xxxiii) in the case of an assessee, being a person of Indian origin or a citizen of India (hereafter in this clause referred to as such person) who was ordinarily residing in a foreign country and who, on leaving such country, has returned to India with the intention of permanently residing therein, moneys 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." (Explanation omitted as unnecessary) 3. The said clause was inserted in section 5 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1976, and was brought into operation with effect from April 1, 1977. When the said clause is read without reference to the proviso contained therein, it express language makes it obvious that the exemption provided therein relates to the money of an assessee of Indian origin who has already returned to India from the foreign country and the value of the assets brought by him into India and the value of the assets acquired by him out of such moneys. When the proviso to the clause intended to specify the number of years during which the exemption provided for in the clause has to be operative, fixes the assessment year of commencement of the exemption in relation to the person, as next following the date on which such person returned to India, it becomes clear that the clause relating to exemption becomes operative with reference to the person who had returned to India by the time of commencement of its operation. Hence, we are unable to think that the exemption contained in clause (xxxiii) above could be regarded as that relating to a person who returns to India the after coming into operation of the said clause (xxxiii) on April 1, 1977. In other words, clause (xxxiii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act cannot be understood as that which makes the exemption therein inoperative in respect of a person of Indian origin who was in a foreign country but returned to India prior to April 1, 1977. Having regard to the said view we have taken of the provision in clause (xxxiii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, our answer to the question under consideration would be in the affirmative and against the Revenue. 4. These references are, accordingly, disposed of.