Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Pratima Bhargava
2000 Latest Caselaw 1213 Del

Citation : 2000 Latest Caselaw 1213 Del
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2000

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Pratima Bhargava on 29 November, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2001) 169 CTR Del 173, 2001 249 ITR 123 Delhi

Author: A Pasayat

Bench: A Pasayat, D Jain

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

1. Heard.

2. On being moved by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B" (for short "the Tribunal"), has referred the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), for the opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?"

3. The assessed is a partner in a partnership firm, Peekay Enterprises, which is running a printing press. A question that arose for consideration was whether the assessed was entitled to the claim of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Tribunal recorded the following finding: "We are clearly of the opinion that the assessed is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii). The partnership firm in which the assessed is a partner is engaged in the processing of goods. The word "processing" has a wider connotation than the word "manufacturing". This is well established by a series of decisions beginning from the decision of the Supreme Court in Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 STC 150. In almost a similar case the Gujarat High Court has held that the activity of printing balance-sheets and making forms for the purpose of preparing balance-sheet would amount to the processing of goods. Similar is the case decided by the Calcutta High Court in Addl. CIT v. A. Mukherjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718. The same principle has been applied in the other two cases relied on by learned counsel for the assessed. The distinction sought to be made by the learned Departmental Representative is understandable. Here also the partnership firm does the printing work as entrusted by others. It has to supervise the job in order to satisfy its customers. This activity does amount to processing of goods."

4. In view of this finding, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue.

5. The references are disposed of accordingly.