JUDGMENT K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.—The following questions have been referred under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holdings that the assessee was not an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(7) (c) of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act in respect of mobile crane and air compressor ?" 2. This reference arise out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee claimed the benefits of investments allowance regarding mobile crane and air compressors owned by it. The assessing authority states that the machinery has been used in "open cast mining". However, he states that mining does not fail within the concept of manufacture or processing of goods and, therefore, section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not attracted. The machinery was not used for the production of any article or thing. 3. In the appeal filed by the assessee, this order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was found by the appellant authority that the assessee was just giving finishing touches to the granite blocks which the assessee purchased for the purpose of export. The finding is that the business of the company consisted of purchase and sale of granite blocks and about 90 per cent. of the purchase is stated to be for export. These granite blocks were purchased, in accordance with the specifications of the purchasers, from the owners of the granite quarries. The assessee employed its own men for the purpose of helping quarry owners to blast the stone into pieces. In these circumstances, the findings is that the assessee was not engaged in any processing activity. At para 9, while considering section 32A of the Act, again he observes that no productions of any articles or thing is involved in chipping and sizing the granite stones. The assessee further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee contended that it was an industrial company since the sizing and polishing of the granite stones would amount to processing of goods. The assessee further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee contended that it was an industrial company since the sizing and polishing of the granite stones would amount to processing of goods. This contentions was negatived because the assessee was not producing any articles or things by sizing and polishing of granite stones. The Appellate Tribunal thus affirmed the reasoning of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. The statement of the case sent to this court states that the assessee's business was purchased and sale of granite blocks and 90 per cent. of the sales were on export. It is further stated : "Under the assessee's agreement with M/s. Pallava Granite Industries dated 16-9-1974, the latter agreed to sell to the assessee a quantity of 525 cubic meters of block granite in sets from the granite quarry leased by Pallava Granite Industries from the Tamil Nadu Government. The quantity of block granite to be supplied was to confirm to the requirements of the assessee as required by the foreign buyers of the assessee." 5. Mr. Sarangan, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the granite pieces are produced or at any rate processed and, therefore, section 32A was attracted. Learned counsel further pointed out that, according to the assessing authority, the assesses-company used the machinery in open cast mining. 6. The user of the machinery in the open-cast mining and the actual activity involved in the open-cast mining are not stated by any of the fact-finding authorities, except a vague reference by the assessing authority. The facts as found by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal show that the assesses-company was not indulging in any mining operations at all. The assessee was only polishing and sizing the granite pieces. 7. In respect of the assessment order for 1976-77, the matter had come up before this court earlier in I. T. R. No. 67 of 1982 Hind Nippon Rural Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 201 ITR 581 KAR. The relevant findings is in para 8 of the order dated December 13, 1989, wherein the Bench held (at pages 585, 586) : "The finding is that the granite blocks are sold to the assessee to the specifications stated by the assessee; therefore, the processing was already done by the seller as part of the consideration for sale. The relevant findings is in para 8 of the order dated December 13, 1989, wherein the Bench held (at pages 585, 586) : "The finding is that the granite blocks are sold to the assessee to the specifications stated by the assessee; therefore, the processing was already done by the seller as part of the consideration for sale. The assessee has its staff to see that the requisite specifications were satisfied by its sellers. The works that may be effected by the assessee are only marginal, in cases where the specifications were not fully satisfied by the vendors. It is clear that the main activity of the assessee is the sale or export of the granite blocks which had already come into existence, before the assessee bought them. The case of the assessee is comparable to a bookseller and not to a printer of books; the assessee is like a trader of tea packets or powdered minerals, having obtained them after the commodity has been processed. The alleged processing, of all the carried out by the assessee is too marginal to elevate its status to that of a main activity of the assessee." 8. Thereafter, it was concluded that merely because some articles may undergo some kind of processing, the entire income cannot be attributed to the processing of the said articles and the object of the activity carried on by the assessee is relevant to consider the nature of the main activity of the assessee. By applying these principles, it was held that the assessee was not an "industrial company". There is nothing on records to show that the facts pertaining to the activity of the assessee are different in the instant case. The statement of the case as well as the finding recorded by the first appellant authority indicate that the activity of the assessee is similar to the one referred to in I.T.R.C. No. 67 of 1982 Hind Nippon Rural Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 201 ITR 581 KAR. The observation of the assessing authority has given arise to some argument; but that cannot be taken note of having regards to the actual findings which is the basis of the appellant orders. Under these circumstances, we find it not possible to take a view different from the view stated in I.T.R.C. No. 67 of 1982 Hind Nippon Rural Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Under these circumstances, we find it not possible to take a view different from the view stated in I.T.R.C. No. 67 of 1982 Hind Nippon Rural Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 201 ITR 581 KAR. 9. Consequently, the questions referred to us will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. We answer accordingly.