COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. CHINTAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The sole question referred to this court is as follows :

(2.) WE have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the Commissioner of WEalth-tax. WE, however, find that the question raised before us is not res Integra. In the case of CWT v. Radhey Mohan Narain [1982] 135 ITR 372 (All), it has been held that the firm engaged in purchasing plain white cloth and getting it converted into bed spreads, etc., is one which is involved in the "processing of goods" within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act and that it is an industrial undertaking, hence entitled to exemption under the WEalth tax Act. This decision has later on been followed by another Division Bench of this court in the case of CWT v. Dinesh Prakash [1988] 173 ITR 520 (All); [1988] Allahabad Tax Judgments 255. It has been held in this case that the business of printing and dyeing involves several processes, namely, bleaching, dyeing, printing, calendering, etc. Therefore, the interest of the assessee in the aforesaid two firms which were involved in the said two businesses which were in the nature of industrial undertakings is exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act.