JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. : This is an income-tax reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of the Revenue and following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal for opinion of this Court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the various units established by the assessee at Korba, Anpara, Bhilai, Badarpur, Satpura, etc. were industrial undertakings and the plant & machinery owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of its business were entitled to relief under s. 32A ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under s. 80HH in respect of its units in backward areas where the assessee had set up separate industrial undertakings for each of the unit ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the units established by the assessee at Anpara, Bhilai, Bokaro, Badarpur, Korba, Satpura were industrial undertakings entitled to relief under s. 80I ?" 2. Suffice it to say that the assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of plant and equipment in the nature of Ash Handling and Oil Distribution System for thermal power plants and steel plants in the country on turn-key basis. It is also engaged in the manufacture, fabrication and erection of steel works for public sector undertakings and the Government Departments. It is further engaged in the construction of industrial foundations, public buildings and housing complexes for steel plants and thermal power plants. The assessee has established separate industrial undertakings at various work sites for manufacture, processing, erection, testing and commissioning of Ash Handling systems. In these circumstances, the assessee claimed relief under ss. 32A, 80HH and 80I of the IT Act, but the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who, following the order of the Tribunal Nagpur Bench, in assessees own case for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1984-85, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 32A, 80HH and 80I of the IT Act, but the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who, following the order of the Tribunal Nagpur Bench, in assessees own case for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1984-85, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Department and confirmed the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the Department approached the Tribunal to make a reference and accordingly, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid three questions for opinion of this Court. 4. It would be relevant to mention here that after filing this reference, a decision was pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) Their Lordships of Supreme Court have made a distinction between the civil construction and the industrial production or manufacture and have taken a view that so far as the industrial production or manufacture is concerned, they are entitled to the benefit of ss. 32A, 80HH and 80I of the IT Act and in civil construction, the benefit is not permissible. In the present case, the assessee is engaged in the building activity of the civil construction as well as industrial establishment of the industries for production and manufacture. This distinction has not been made in the facts which has been referred to us; therefore, instead of answering these aforesaid three questions, we remand this case to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in the light of the aforesaid decision CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (supra). Accordingly, this reference application is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-determine the issue in the light of the aforesaid decision - CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (supra).