Judgment 1. This is a reference under Sec.27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The question referred for our opinion is whether a cold storage is "an industrial undertaking" and reads as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that cold storage is also a plant and comes under an industrial undertaking and is entitled to statutory exemption as provided under Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" 2. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1973-74, The assessee is an individual. She (for, the assessee is a lady) had invested large amount in a firm, M/s Vishnu Cold Storage. The value of her holdings was to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000. The Wealth-tax Officer intended to include the value of her holdings in the cold storage for the purpose of reckoning her liability under the Act. The assessee contended that her interest in the cold storage was not liable to be included in terms of Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected her claim. She, however, succeeded before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the reference at the instance of the Revenue. 3. Sec.3 of the Act is the charging section providing that tax shall be charged in respect of the net wealth of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company on the valuation date. Sec. 4 enumerates the assets to be included in computing the net wealth of an individual. As a corollary to Section 4, in Sec. 5 of the Act, it is provided what assets shall not be included. It provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1A), wealth-tax shall not be payable by the assessee in respect of certain assets and those assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Then follows several clauses. It provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1A), wealth-tax shall not be payable by the assessee in respect of certain assets and those assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Then follows several clauses. We are concerned in this case with Clause (xxxii) which reads as under: "the value, as determined in the prescribed manner of the interest of the assessee in the assets (not being any land or building or any rights in any land or building or any asset referred to in any other clause of this sub-section) forming part of an industrial undertaking belonging to a firm or an association of persons of which the assessee is a partner, or, as the case may be, a member." 4. This clause was inserted by the Finance Act, 1972, and came into force with effect from April 1, 1973. Along with Clause (xxxii) Was also inserted Clause (xxxi). The said clause carried an Explanation which reads as follows : "Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause and Clause (xxxii), the term industrial undertaking means an undertaking engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining," 5. The command of the law in terms of Clauses (xxxi) and (xxxii) is that " industrial undertaking" means an undertaking engaged in the business of processing of goods besides other matters. In this case, we are not concerned with "the business of generation or distribution of electricity nor with the construction of ships or in the manufacture of goods or mining". It is patent that the expression "industrial undertaking" in Clause (xxxi) must include processing of goods. The cold storage is engaged in storing potatoes. It has, therefore, to be seen whether by virtue of storing potatoes, a cold storage falls within the ambit of the expression "industrial undertaking". 6. P. Ramanatha Aiyar in his Law Lexicon has stated at page 1023 that "process" is a word which may be applied either to methods of action such as legal proceedings, or to the treatment of substance in transforming and reducing it to a different state and the means of such treatment. 6. P. Ramanatha Aiyar in his Law Lexicon has stated at page 1023 that "process" is a word which may be applied either to methods of action such as legal proceedings, or to the treatment of substance in transforming and reducing it to a different state and the means of such treatment. Later it is stated " process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result; it is an act or a species of acts performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a definite state of things." 7. The very question which has fallen before us fell for consideration before a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT V/s. Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 816. The precise question raised there was whether a cold storage was an "industrial company". In that connection, the provisions of Sec.2(7)(d) of the Finance Acts of 1966 and 1967, according to which the word "industrial company" means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or Processing of goods or in mining fell for consideration. The expanse of the word "processing" thus had to be considered. In that connection, their Lordships referred to the observations of Lord Cameron in the case of Kilmarnock Equitable Co-operative Society Ltd. V/s. IRC [1966] 42 TC 675 (C. Sess), where it had been observed at page 685: "The word process in its ordinary connotation seems to me to mean no more than the. application of a method of manufacture or adaptation of goods or materials towards a particular use, purpose or end, while to subject means no more than to treat in some manner or other." 8. Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court emphasised that the expression "processing" was different in content than the word "manufacture". After referring to authoritative excerpts from Websters New International Dictionary, Words and Phrases Legally Defined, volume 4, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, volume 9, pages 543 and 545, Agricultural Engineers Hand Book at page 741 by C. B. Richey and Fruit Culture in India published by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi, their Lordships observed as follows ([1977] 107 ITR at pp. 821 and 822): "Review of all these authorities clearly indicates that when articles like potatoes, as in the present case, are kept under refrigeration, their decay is prevented. The temperature in the cold storages, admittedly, is regulated by use of machinery. Thus, the mere fact that the potatoes themselves, which are kept in the cold storage, do not undergo any transformation and remain static, does not by itself mean that they are not subjected to any process at all during the period of storage. We have already held that the processing of goods need not lead to manufacture of a new article. Preservation by refrigeration is a well-known method for keeping edible things in good condition for temporary periods." 9. On that basis, their Lordships held that cold storage was an "industrial company". 10. The same question fell for consideration also before the Calcutta High Court in CIT V/s. Radha Nagar Cold Storage (P,) Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 66. Sabyasachi Makharji J. referred to and approved the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Farrukhabad Cold Storage (P.) Ltd.s case [1977] 107 ITR 816. Their Lordships, in agreement with the Allahabad High Court, held that processing of goods need not mean manufacture of a new article. We have no desire to encumber this judgment by quoting the literature referred to by C.S.P. Singh J. and Sabyasachi Mukharji J. in the cases referred to above. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon CST V/s. Harbilas Rai and Sons [1968] 21 STC 17 (SC) and contended that a cold storage is not involved in processing of goods. We regret, the reliance placed upon this case is misplaced. That was a case where the meaning and expanse of word "manufacture" fell for consideration. As to the expanse of the word " processing ", it did not fall for consideration in that case. In that case, their Lordships were considering the impact of Sec.2(h) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, which had Explanation II to it. In that Explanation, it was stated that notwithstanding anything in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the sale of any goods which are produced or manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, by the producer or manufacturer thereof, shall be taken for the purposes of the Act to have taken place in Uttar Pradesh. In that Explanation, it was stated that notwithstanding anything in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the sale of any goods which are produced or manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, by the producer or manufacturer thereof, shall be taken for the purposes of the Act to have taken place in Uttar Pradesh. That being the provision, their Lordships had to consider whether plucking of pig bristles from pigs and selling them to the assessee and the assessee thereafter boiling them and washing them with soap and other chemicals, amounted to manufacture or not. In that background, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it did not constitute "manufacture". In our view, the case of Harbilas Rai and Sons [1968] 21 STC 17 has no application to the instant case. 12. Our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel for the Revenue to the case of CIT V/s. Yamuna Cold Storage [1981] 129 ITR 728 (P & H). The question falling for consideration there was whether the cold storage fell within the description of "factory building" qualifying for depreciation allowance. Their Lordships held that "cold storage" was a plant. The question before us is slightly different. We are not concerned with the meaning of the expression "factory building" nor are we concerned with the provision or expression used in the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the instant case, we are concerned only with the content of the word "industrial undertaking" and whether an institution engaged in processing of goods is an "industrial undertaking" or not. For this purpose, we need not trouble ourselves with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In our view, a cold storage is an "industrial undertaking". It has, therefore, to be excluded from the computation of net wealth of an assessee. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to have mentioned in the question referred to us whether cold storage was a plant, but since that word has been mentioned in the question referred to us, we are of the view that a cold storage is a plant and comes under an industrial undertaking. As such, it is entitled to statutory exemption as provided under Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 13. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As such, it is entitled to statutory exemption as provided under Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 13. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is thus answered with costs payable to the assessee. Hearing fee Rs. 250. 14. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of Sec.27(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.