( 1 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm which is running a hotel in bangalora City. During the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 10,745 by way of development rebate under S. 33 of the income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of a lift, air-conditioning plant and sanitary fittings installed in the hotel during the relevant period. The Income-tax Officer declined to allow the rebate. Aggrieved by the order of the ITO the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Commr. of IT (hereinafter referred to as the Commr.) under s. 264 of the Act. The Commr. dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of the ITO. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Commissioner. ( 2 ) THE sole reason given by the ITO and the Commr. for disallowing the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner which is not an Indian Coy. and which is not approved by the Centra] Govt. as stated in the proviso to sub-sec. (6) of S. 33, was not entitled to the rebate under S. 33 (1) (a) and (b) (B) (iv) (b) of the Act. The relevant part, of S. 33 reads as follows :" 33 (1) (a ). In respect of a new ship or new maehnery or plant (other than office appliances or road transport vehicles) which is owned by the assesses and is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by him, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section and of S. 34, be allowed a deduction in respect of the previous year in which the ship was acquired or the machinery or plant was installed or, if the ship, machinery or plant is first put to use, in the immediately succeeding previous year, then, in respect of that previous year, a sum by way of development rebate as specified in clause (b): (b) The sum referred to in clause (a) shall be- (B) in the case of machinery or plant, (i), (ii), (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) in any other case- (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b) fifteen per cent of such cost where it is installed after 31st day of March, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) in any other case- (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b) fifteen per cent of such cost where it is installed after 31st day of March, 1970. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the, foregoing provisions off this section, no deduction by way of development rebate shall be allowed in respect of any machinery or plant installed after the 31st day of March, 1965 in any office premises or any residential accommodation, Including any accommodation in the nature of a guesthouse : provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not, apply in the, case of an assessee, being an Indian Coy. , in respect of any machinery or plant installed by it in premises used by" it as a hotel, where the hotel is for the time, being apprqved in this behalf by the Central government. " ( 3 ) ON a true construction of the prqvisions extracted abqve it has to be, held that the ground on which the authorities below declined to allow the rebate claimed by the petitioner is untenable,. A close, study of S. 33 makes the point clear. The extent of rebate, claimable in respect of machinery and plant by an assessee running a hotel which is approved by the Central Govt. is set qut in S. 33 (1) (b) (B) (ii ). The case of the petitioner who is an assesses running a hotel not failing under the above clause falls under the residuary clause, namely, S. 33 (1) (b) (B) (iv ). Sub-sec. (6) of S. 33 which was enacted by the Finance, Act 1965 provided that not withstanding anything contained in the earlier part of S. 33, no deduction by way of development rebate would be admissible, in respect of any machinery or plant installed after 31st day of March 1965 in any office premises or any residential accommodation including any accommodation in the nature of a guest house. It meant that an assessee falling under any of the categories referred to in clause of S. 33 (1) (b) (B) would not be entitled to claim development rebate in respect of machinery or plant installed after 31-3-1965 in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest house, owned or maintained by the assessee. It is significant that the Parliament has stated in the above clause that no rebate would be allowed in respect of machinery or plant in the accommodation in the nature of a guest-house and not in a hotel, although in S,33 the expression 'hotel' is used at other places. Hence the expression 'guest house' should not be treated as meaning a hotel where customers have to pay for the services rendered. It is reasonable to hold that it refers to a place where the guests of the assesses are received and entertained gratuitously or at a concessional rate. The proviso to sub-sec. (6) of S. 33 which was enacted in 1967 provided that she provision for dis-allowance of rebate in sub-sec. (6) would not apply in the cases of an assessee being an Indian Coy. , in respect of machinery or plant installed by it in premises used by it as a hotel where the hotel is for the time being approved in this behalf by the, Central Govt. What the proviso means is that where the assessee which is an Indian Coy. uses the premises as a hotel approved by the Central Govt. even though the plaint or machinery installed is in the portion used as office premises, residential accommodation including any accommodation in the nature of a guesthouse maintained by the assessee would still be entitled to claim the rebate notwithstanding sub-sec. (6) of S. 33. The language of S. 33 which has been amended from time to time has led to some confusion. It, is no doubt true that the use of the expression 'hotel' in the proviso has created room for thinking that the scape of sub-sec. (6) of S. 33 has been enlarged. But i do not hink that such an interpretation is permissible in this case. When the case of the petitioner does not fall within sub-sec. (6) of S. 33, it would be unjust to construe the proviso to that sub-section as taking away the rebate to which the petitioner is entitled on the ground that the expression 'guest-house' in that sub-section referred to a hotel, but not to a guest-house which is maintained to entertain the guest of the assessee gratuitously. Admittedly the machinery and plant in question have been installed in a hotel where the petitioner has been carrying on its business. Admittedly the machinery and plant in question have been installed in a hotel where the petitioner has been carrying on its business. It is not the case of the revenue that the petitioner has been running its office in the premises where the machinery and plant are installed or any of the partners or servants of the petitioner are using any part of the premises in which the machinery and plant are installed as residential accommodation. NOr is it the case of the department that the petitioner has been using the place for the purpose of receiving and entertaining its guests gratuitously. It is, therefore, clear that sub-sec. (6) is not at all attracted to the ease on hand. Hence the claim for rebate has to, be allowed. The orders of the Commr. and the ITO to the extent they disallow the development rebate in respect of the plant and machinery in question, are set aside. The ITO is directed to make the necessary modification in the order of assessment in the light of the above judgment. ( 4 ) THE other contention which relates to the claim for depreciation allowance under S. 32 in respect of the lift installed by the petitioner, is not pressed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. --- *** --- .