2000 (11) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 1979-80. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which owns machinery used for oil extraction. The machinery was leased out by it to another firm and was being used for the extraction of groundnut oil; that the machinery formed part of the industrial undertaking was not questioned by the Revenue at any time. The Income-tax Officer and also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit of exemption solely on the ground that the machinery though belonging to the assessee did not form part of the industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee. The Tribunal having held otherwise, the Revenue sought the reference which is now before us. Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, reads thus: "5. (1)(xxxi) the value,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trial undertaking himself. So long as it can be said that the assessee is the owner of the industrial undertaking, the industrial undertaking is to be regarded as one belonging to the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that this court in the case of CWT v. P.T.N. Shenbagamoorthy [1983] 144 ITR 724 has taken a different view. The court in that case considered that the assessee who had leased out the salt pans, the salt pans being the industrial undertaking he was not entitled to the benefit of section 5(1)(xxxi) in respect of the same. That decision must be understood in the context of the facts which required consideration therein. In a salt pan it is the land itself which is used for the purpose of manufacturi....