Commissioner of Income Tax vs Popular Automobiles Ltd.

G. Sivarajan, J.

The following question of law is referred to this court pursuant to the directions issued by this court in the judgment dated 7-10-1994 in O.P. No. 722/93 for decision:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-company engaged in construction activity is entitled for investment allowance u/s 32A of the Act ?"

We have heard the learned Standing counsel appearing for the applicant. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance. The Standing counsel submitted that the question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa and Others Vs. N.C. Budharaja and Company and Others, . We have gone through the said judgment and we find that the Supreme Court has held that sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 32A does not comprehend within its ambit construction of a dam, a bridge, a building, a road, a canal and other similar constructions.

In the light of the above, the assessee or the work done by it cannot be characterised as an industrial undertaking entitled to the relief u/s 32A of the Act. In the light of the said decision, we answer the question in the negative, that is in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.