High Court Of Delhi
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Smt. Pratima Bhargava
Sections WT 5(1)(xxxii)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.
WT Ref. Nos. 291 & 292 of 1983
29th November, 2000
Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. :
Heard. On being moved by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi “B” (for short “the Tribunal”), has referred the following question under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”), for the opinion of this Court :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?”
2. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm, Peekay Enterprises, which is running a printing press. Question that arose for consideration was whether the assessee was entitled to the claim of exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Tribunal recorded the following finding :
“We are clearly of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii). The partnership firm in which the assessee 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. vs. State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 150 (SC). In almost a similar case the Calcutta 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 vs. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 718 (Cal) : TC 24R.218. The same principle has been applied in the other two cases relied on by learned counsel for the assessee. 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.”
In view of this finding, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The references are disposed of accordingly.
[Citation : 249 ITR 123]