9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for a firm with three business activities: running an Oil Mill, trade in hill produce, and export of sea foods. Analysis: The Wealth-tax assessee-appellant, a partner in the firm, sought exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, requiring the firm to be an industrial undertaking. The definition of 'industrial undertaking' includes businesses involved in the manufacture or processing of goods. The WTO did not delve into the nature of the firm's activities, opining that the process of making goods market-ready was insufficient for exemption. The AAC found the oil mill and sea food export as industrial undertakings but questioned the trade in hill produce's qualification. In the appeal, the assessee explained the trade process involving purchasing pepper, washing, garbling, and sorting for export. The process included bulk washing, garbling by a machine run on power, and sieving for quality control. The departmental representative argued that the process was merely preparing goods for the market, akin to cleaning agricultural produce, and not processing. However, the Tribunal determined that while not constituting manufacturing, the process of improving goods' quality through machinery operation qualified as processing. The use of machinery powered by electricity distinguished it from manual labor, elevating it to an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal held that the trade in hill produce, involving power-operated machinery for processing pepper, qualified as an industrial undertaking. Citing a Kerala High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that the sophistication of machinery or semblance of manufacture was not necessary; processing to enhance product quality with power-run machinery was sufficient. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, modifying the assessment to recognize all three business activities of the firm as industrial undertakings eligible for exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act.
|
