OM PRAKASH, J. This is a revision against the impugned order dated August 22, 199 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 2. The opposite party set up a unit for manufacturing detergent powder and soaps and was granted an eligibility certificate for a period of five years, commencing from May 16, 1983. 3. By order dated February 5, 1988 passed under section 4-A (3) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the Commissioner, Trade Tax, reduced the period from five years to three years on the ground that total investment in the unit set up by the opposite party was less than Rs. 1 lakhs. The Commissioner was of the view that the land on which the unit was set up was self acquired property of Khairati Lal, father of the three partners, who set up the unit and that the same was not owned by the opposite party and, therefore, the investment made in the land could not be taken into consideration. He was of the view that the rest of the investment made in the building and plant and machinery was short of Rs. 3 lakhs. 4. The Sales Tax Tribunal relying on the evidence produced by the opposite party held that the land on which the unit was set up by the opposite party, was Hindu undivided family (H. U. F.) property and that the total investment made in the land, building and plant and machinery was more than Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, the words passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, reducing the period of exemption, was bad. 5. It has come in the order of the Sales Tax Commissioner that the investment in the building of the unit was to the turn of Rs. 74,285 and the investment made in the plant and machinery was Rs. 55,341. Total of these two amounts in Rs. 1,29,626. It is minus the investment made in the land, which according to the Commissioner was self acquired property of Khairati Lal, father of the three partners. 6. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the land on which the unit was set up, belonged to the H. U. F. , because that finding is based on the evidence, adduced by the opposite party. 6. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the land on which the unit was set up, belonged to the H. U. F. , because that finding is based on the evidence, adduced by the opposite party. The Tribunal relied on an assessment made on the H. U. F. In that assessment, the land in question was shown to be the property of the H. U. F. 7. The short submission of the Standing Counsel is that total value of the land and building was estimated at Rs. 3 lakhs by the Tehsildar and that the three partners who set up the unit, are entitled to 1/4 share each in the H. U. F. property and thus the total value of their share is only Rs. 2,25,000 (Rs. 75,000 of the share of each partner ). The submission of the Standing Counsel is that even if the land is deemed to be belonging to the partners, only the value of their share will be taken into account and that falls short of Rs. 3 lakhs. Assuming but not accepting that the value of the land on which the unit has been set up is only Rs. 2,25,000 as argued by the Standing Counsel, the value of the investment made in the building and plant and machinery has to be added to that. As per the order of the Commissioner himself, the investment made in the building comes to Rs. 74,285 and besides that investment made in the plant and machinery comes to Rs. 55,341 aggregating to Rs. 1,29,626. If this investment of Rs. 1,29,626 is added to Rs. 2,25,000 representing the total value of the share of the three partners, then the investment exceeds Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax under section 4-A (3) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act is bad in law. For these reasons, the revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .