ORDER A.R. TIWARI, J. At the instance of the department, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law, on the applications registered as R.A. Nos. 70 and 101/Ind/1992 for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1984-85 arising out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 27-1-1992, passed in ITA No. 707/Ind/1988 and C.O. No. 40/Ind/1989 for the assessment year 1982-83 and order dt. 29-1-1992, passed in ITA No. 439/Ind/1987 for the assessment year 1984-85 under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner 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 section 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 30-9-1981) and 1984-85 (previous year ending 30-9-1983). The assessee carried on the business of engineering contract or, undertaking and executing contract works 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 ss. 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 (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. He, therefore, revised the order under section 263 of the Act and directed the Income Tax Officer to make 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 (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1982-83, the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. He, therefore, revised the order under section 263 of the Act and directed the Income Tax Officer to make 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 (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1982-83, the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied by the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act for the asst, yr. 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 ss. 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 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 that 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 in CIT v. Shankar Construction Co. etc. (1993) 114 CTR (SC) 420 : (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC) and the order passed by this Court-CIT v. P.D. Agrawal & Co. (on 4-4-1996, in Misc. Civil Case. No. 143/1993), the aforesaid question merits to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 5. Section 80HHA of the Act permits deductions in respect of profits and gains from newly established small scale industrial undertakings in certain areas. Section 80J of the Act permits deductions in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or shops or hotel business in certain cases. 6. In the aforesaid decision of Shankar Construction Co. (supra), it is held as under : "So far as the deduction 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 assessee, holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the said subclause. (supra), it is held as under : "So far as the deduction 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 assessee, holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the said subclause. 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 CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1980) 121 ITR 212 (Ori) . 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." xxx xxx xxx 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 ss. 80HHA and 80J of the Act. It is settled law that 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 Misc. 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 tee for the applicant is however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.