JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the under noted question of law, on the applications registered as R. A. Nos. 70 and 101/Ind of 1992 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1984-85, arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated January 27, 1992, passed in ITA No. 797/Ind of 1988 and C. O. No. 40/Ind of 1989 for the assessment year 1982-83 and order dated January 29, 1992, passed in ITA No. 439/Ind of 1987 for the assessment year 1984-85 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 holding that the assessee is an 'industrial undertaking' engaged in manufacture or production of articles or things and that the assessee is accordingly entitled to deduction under Sections 80HHA and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. The years of assessment involved are 1982-83 (previous year ending November 30, 1981) and 1984-85 (previous year ending November 30, 1983). The assessee carried on the business of engineering contractor, undertaking and executing contract work with manufacturing of piles for construction of buildings. For that purpose, the assessee employed a special process known as "pressure piling". The assessee, therefore, claimed that the process of pressure piling amounted to manufacture and, as such, made it entitled to deductions under Sections 80J and 80HHA of the Act as an industrial company. The Income-tax Officer negatived the claim. The assessee then filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who accepted the claim of the assessee and held that the assessee was an industrial undertaking for the assessment year 1982-83. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85. The said assessment was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the Commissioner of Income-tax. He, therefore, revised the order under Section 263 of the Act and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in conformity with law after examining the nature of business for the assessment year 1984-85. The said assessment was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the Commissioner of Income-tax. He, therefore, revised the order under Section 263 of the Act and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in conformity with law after examining the nature of business for the assessment year 1984-85. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1982-8?, the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to be considered as an industrial undertaking and was thus entitled to deductions under Section 80HHA and 80J of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 1982-83 and allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 and demolished the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 (annexures E and F). The Department then filed the applications under Section 256(1) of the Act. On these applications, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law for our consideration. 3. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared for the non-applicant despite issuance of SPC for today. 4. Shri Vyas submitted that in view of the decision reported in CIT v. Shankar Construction Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412 (SC) and the order passed by this court on April 4,1996, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 143 of 1993-CIT v. P. D. Agrawal and Co. [1997] 226 ITR 924, the aforesaid question merits to be answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. 5. Section 80HHA of the Act permits deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established small-scale industrial undertakings in certain areas. Section 80J of the Act permits deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or ships or hotel business in certain cases. 6. 5. Section 80HHA of the Act permits deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established small-scale industrial undertakings in certain areas. Section 80J of the Act permits deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or ships or hotel business in certain cases. 6. In the aforesaid decision of Shankar Construction Co.'s case [1993] 204 ITR 412 (SC), it is held as under (page 434) : "So far as the decision of the High Court under appeal is concerned, it appears to have concentrated more upon the meaning of the word 'industrial undertaking' and answered the question in favour of the asses-see, holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the said Sub-clause. Unfortunately, it has not adverted to the other requirement of the said sub-clause even though the Tribunal had referred to this aspect and had disagreed with the view taken by the Orissa High Court in N. C. Budharaja and Co.'s case [1980] 121 ITR 212. It must be remembered that the Sub-clause is attracted only if all the requirements therein are satisfied besides the other requirements in the other provisions of the Section." 7. We are satisfied that the process of pressure piling did not amount to manufacture and that the requirements of law are not satisfied in the instant case to hold that the assessee was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. 8. In view of the factual matrix and legal position, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacture or production of articles or things. It is held by the apex court that the activity of construction of the dam could not be characterised as manufacture or production of an article within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, committed an error in allowing the benefit of deduction under Sections 80HHA and 80J of the Act. It is settled law that the construction of buildings, roads and dams, etc., does not amount to manufacture or production of articles or things as envisaged under the Act. It is also clear that the process of piling also does not amount to manufacture and does not make the assessee an industrial undertaking. It is settled law that the construction of buildings, roads and dams, etc., does not amount to manufacture or production of articles or things as envisaged under the Act. It is also clear that the process of piling also does not amount to manufacture and does not make the assessee an industrial undertaking. Consequently, we answer the aforesaid question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. 9. This miscellaneous civil case is thus disposed of as above with no orders as to costs against the non-applicant as it did not choose to appear and contest the case. Counsel's fee for the applicant is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 10. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary under the law.