Judgment 1. These are references under Sec.17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). The question referred to us for our opinion is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the business of the firm, M/s. Bharat Stone Works, Bokaro Steel City, is an "industrial undertaking" within the meaning of the Explanation to Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and so the assessee is entitled to the benefit under Sec. 5(1) (xxxii) of the said Act ? " 2. The assessment years in the present references are 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee is a partner in a firm, M/s. Bharat Stone Works, Bokaro Steel City. The firm is engaged in extracting stones and boulders from quarries, crushing them to small pieces with the help of machinery and power and selling them as small chips. In the years in question, the assessee filed a return showing net wealth at Rs. 1,14,875 and Rs. 1,45,660, respectively. The assessee claimed that his interest in the factory (stone crushing plant) was exempt in terms of Section 5(1), clauses (xxxi) and (xxxii) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the stand of the assessee on the footing that unearthing of stones and boulders and crushing them to small pieces did not involve any manufacturing or processing of goods or mining. The assessee appealed against the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner by a consolidate order accepted the plea of the assessee holding that the activity of the assessee was a mining/manufacturing process. An appeal by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal was filed which was dismissed. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, claimed reference before this court. Hence, the present references before us. 3. Sec. 4 of the Act lays down what assets are to be included to constitute the net wealth of the assessee. Sec. 5 lays down the assets which are not to be included in the tally of assessable items of the assessee. Clauses (xxxi) and (xxxii) prescribe that the value or interest in any industrial undertaking has to be exempted in the calculation of net taxable wealth. Clause (xxxi) was inserted in the Act in 1972 by the Finance Act 16 of 1972. Clauses (xxxi) and (xxxii) prescribe that the value or interest in any industrial undertaking has to be exempted in the calculation of net taxable wealth. Clause (xxxi) was inserted in the Act in 1972 by the Finance Act 16 of 1972. It reads as follows: " (xxxi) the value, as determined in the prescribed manner, of 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 the assessee. 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." 4. "Industrial undertaking" in terms of the Explanation means an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. The facts show that the assessee was engaged in unearthing boulders and crushing them to sizes for supply/sale. Unearthing and crushing of the boulders amount to mining. In that sense, the firm of which the assessee is a partner would be held to be engaged in mining and thus the firm would be an industrial undertaking. Further, there cannot be any manner of doubt that crushing the boulders to various sizes by machinery amounts to processing of goods. By the process of crushing, the boulders change their nomenclature and their utility. In that sense, we have not the least doubt that crushing of boulders is a manufacturing process. The firm being engaged in manufacturing processes, it must be held that the firm was an "industrial undertaking". That being so, the interest of the assessee in the firm had to be exempted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the interest of the assessee was exempted in terms of Sec. 5(1)(xxxi) and (xxxii) of the Act in the net wealth of the assessee. 5. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of the firm, M/s. Bharat Stone Works, Bokaro Steel City, was an industrial undertaking and that its partners entitled to the benefit of the provision under Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. 5. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of the firm, M/s. Bharat Stone Works, Bokaro Steel City, was an industrial undertaking and that its partners entitled to the benefit of the provision under Sec. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The question referred to us is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in terms of Sec.27(6) of the Act.