Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee’s share in the firms, M/s Chintamani Brothers and M/s Kastoor Chand Munna Lal, was exempt from wealth-tax under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?

Counsel Appeared

K. Rastogi, for the Revenue : V. Gulati, for the Assessee

M. SAHAI, J.:

The following question of law has been referred under s. 27 of the WT Act, 1957 :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee’s share in the firms, M/s Chintamani Brothers and M/s Kastoor Chand Munna Lal, was exempt from wealth-tax under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?

The assessee, an individual, was a partner in M/s Chintamani Brothers and M/s Kastoor Chand Munna Lal. Both the firms were engaged in dyeing and printing white cloth and sarees therefrom. In the return filed for the asst. yr. 1974-75, he claimed exemption in respect of his share in these firms under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. Its claim was not accepted by the WTO. In appeal, it was held that the firms were industrial undertakings within the meaning of the Explanation to the aforesaid section. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the exemption. The order was affirmed by the Tribunal. In CWT vs. Radhey Mohan Narain (1982) 135 ITR 372 (All), it was held that since dyeing and printing amounted to processing, the firm engaged in it was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. On the facts found which appear to be more or less similar as in Radhey Mohan Narain’s case (1982) 135 ITR 372 (All), the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable. Learned counsel for the Department failed to point out any distinguishing feature. In the circumstances, the question is answered in the affirmative, against the Department and in favour of assessee, There shall be no order as to costs.

[Citation : 172 ITR 69]