COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. CHANDRAKANT RATILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the asst. yr. 1981-82 :

(2.) ON the relevant valuation date, the assessee's wealth consisted of movable assets only. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption under S. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') in respect of investment amounting to Rs. 1,50,000 made in industrial concerns. The WTO, relying upon his orders in earlier years, rejected the assessee's said claim. But in appeal the learned AAC, following a number of decisions of the Tribunal on the point in several similar cases, accepted the assessee's claim. The Revenue's second appeal to the Tribunal also failed and the view of the AAC was upheld.

(3.) MR . Bhatt for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had followed its decision in the case of Dinesh Ratilal HUF holding that the expression 'engaged in' employed in Explanation to cls. (xxxii), (xxxi) and (xxxa) was wide enough in import to include cases where the assessee gets the goods manufactured by an outside agency. It is, however, vehemently submitted that that view has not been accepted by this Court. In CWT vs. Mohinibai Kanaiyalal (1999) 157 CTR (Guj) 298 : (1999) 240 ITR 636 (Guj), this Court has taken the view that if the work is got done by an outside agency, it cannot be said that the concerned firm was engaged in manufacture.