Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jagphool Narain - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/463615
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided OnFeb-05-1991
Case NumberWealth-tax Reference No. 30 of 1978
JudgeB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;R.A. Sharma, J.
Reported in[1991]192ITR295(All)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentJagphool Narain
Respondent AdvocateVikram Gulati, Adv.
Excerpt:
- b.p. jeevan reddy, c.j.1. under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, the tribunal has stated the following question to this court:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that chintamani bros., a firm engaged in printing and sale of cotton sarees, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 5(1)(xxxii) read with the explanation to clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the act and that the assessee's interest therein was entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under the said provisions ?'2. it is brought to our notice by learned standing counsel for the revenue that this question is concluded by a decision of this court in cwt v. radhey mohan narain : [1982]135itr372(all) . it has been held therein that where the assessee was engaged in purchasing plain white cloth and converting it into printed bed-spreads, scarves, garments, etc., by a process of dyeing and printing, the unit constitutes an 'industrial undertaking' within the meaning of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the wealth-tax act. following the said decision, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Judgment:

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.

1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question to this court:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Chintamani Bros., a firm engaged in printing and sale of cotton sarees, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) read with the Explanation to Clause (xxxii) of Section 5(1) of the Act and that the assessee's interest therein was entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under the said provisions ?'

2. It is brought to our notice by learned standing counsel for the Revenue that this question is concluded by a decision of this court in CWT v. Radhey Mohan Narain : [1982]135ITR372(All) . It has been held therein that where the assessee was engaged in purchasing plain white cloth and converting it into printed bed-spreads, scarves, garments, etc., by a process of dyeing and printing, the unit constitutes an 'industrial undertaking' within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. Following the said decision, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.