Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in TCP Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983 dt. 16th April, 1984 (TC Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985) and TCP No. 311 of 1984 dt. 10th December, 1984 (TC No. 1835 of 1986), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under the provisions of s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion. TC Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right on holding that the assessee is entitled to the allowance of initial depreciation under s. 32(1)(vi) investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, respectively for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee's business of bleaching, dyeing and pre-shrinking of cotton cloth of various customers does not amount to manufacture or production of an articles or thing specified in item 21 of the Ninth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, for both the years ?" (TC No. 1835 of 1986): " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the allowance of investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the activities carried out by the assessee such as bleaching, dyeing, printing, etc." on cloth given by its customers would amount to 'manufacture or production of articles or things' as contemplated in s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, as it stood for the asst. yr. 1978-79 ?" 2. The assessee is a company which carries on manufacturing process such as de-sizing, scuring, mercerising, bleaching, dyeing, printing and finishing on cloth given by its customers. For this purpose it had installed machinery. It was found that generally speaking grey cloth in bales are received from the customers for manufacture of cotton fabrics or art silk fabrics. The grey cloth is first de-sized with special chemicals and then bleached. Certain varieties of cloth like tukey towels are required to be dyed then they are first mercerised and passed through a heat setting treatment before dyeing. Finally, the cloth is printed and finished. The grey cloth is first de-sized with special chemicals and then bleached. Certain varieties of cloth like tukey towels are required to be dyed then they are first mercerised and passed through a heat setting treatment before dyeing. Finally, the cloth is printed and finished. Afterwards, it is cut into required piece lengths and packed for delivering to the customers. The assessee during the course of assessment years claimed initial depreciation for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 and for investment allowance under the provisions of s. 32A of the IT Act for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee and the Tribunal also held that the assessee was entitled to initial depreciation and investment allowance. Against the order of the Tribunal, the Department sought for and on the basis of the directions of this Court, the tax case reference has been referred to us. 3. At the time of hearing of reference Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that a similar point of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CIT v. S. S. M. Processing Mills wherein this Court held that the activity of the assessee would not amount to any manufacturing activity and the assessee was not entitled to higher development rebates as also initial depreciation under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i) read with item No. 32 of the Fifth Schedule and s. 32(1)(vi), respectively, of the IT Act, 1961. It is not disputed by Mr. S. A. Balasubramanian learned counsel appearing for the assessee that the facts in the case supra are similar to the facts of this case and the said decision would apply to the facts of the case as well. Following the said decision of this Court, we answer the questions of law referred to us in both the tax cases in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 4. At the time of conclusion of judgment of the case, Mr. S. A. Balasubramanian learned counsel for the assessee, seeks leave of this Court to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against our decision on the ground that this Court has granted leave to appeal to Supreme Court in CIT v. S. S. M. Processing Mills (supra). 4. At the time of conclusion of judgment of the case, Mr. S. A. Balasubramanian learned counsel for the assessee, seeks leave of this Court to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against our decision on the ground that this Court has granted leave to appeal to Supreme Court in CIT v. S. S. M. Processing Mills (supra). It is seen that this Court has granted leave to the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that the Supreme Court has granted special leave against a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on similar facts and the appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. Since this Court has granted leave to appeal against the decision of this Court in S. S. M. Processing Mills and since we have followed the earlier decision, we are of the opinion that for the reasons stated therein the leave also should be granted to the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court as against our decision in TC Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985 as well as TC 1835 of 1986. Accordingly, we grant leave to assessee to appeal to Supreme Court as against our decision in TC Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985 and in TC No. 1835 of 1986 as prayed for by the learned counsel for the assessee. No costs.