Judgment :- OM. Prakash, CJ. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions under S.256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (briefly 'the Act') for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is an "industrial undertaking" and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and unsupported by materials, 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (a)(i) did the Tribunal find that the assessee is manufacturing or producing article or thing? (ii) (if found) is not the finding of manufacture or production of article or thing wrong, unreasonable, unsupported by materials and based on a wrong interpretation of relevant provisions? (b) should not the Tribunal have considered and found the assessee to have manufactured or produced an article or thing to be entitled to claim the benefit of S.32A(2)(b)(iii) of the I.T. Act? (c) In the absence of a necessary finding of 'construction' or 'manufacture' or 'production' or article or tiling, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of S.32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? (d) Should not the Tribunal have considered the claim of the assessee in the light of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act and is not the order vitiated for not considering the claim, in all its aspects under S.32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act?" 2. Respondent - assessee company is doing business in computerised accounting and management services by using computers. For the assessing year 1981-82, the assessing officer treated the assessee company as a non Industrial undertaking holding that the duty of the company does not involve manufacture or production of any article or thing and that the computer itself can be considered as an office appliance and hence the assessee is not entitled to the deduction under S.32A and S.80J. The assessee-company, claiming itself to be a new industrial undertaking, claimed deductions under S.32A and S.80J of the Act. The assessing officer found as under: "The services rendered by the assessee in preparing final accounts from the data furnished to the computer is merely rendering of services. It is like the services of an accountant. There is no finished product" This is how the assessing officer refused to allow deductions as claimed by the assessee. The assessing officer found as under: "The services rendered by the assessee in preparing final accounts from the data furnished to the computer is merely rendering of services. It is like the services of an accountant. There is no finished product" This is how the assessing officer refused to allow deductions as claimed by the assessee. The assessee then carried the dispute before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who relying on the decisions of the various Income-tax Appellate Tribunals and High Courts, held that the data processing machines owned by the assessee are not office appliances and the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under S. 32 A and deduction under S.8OJ of the Act. Aggrieved, the Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee rendered services of development or manufacture of software or programmes and also processed the data for various customers like the Federal Bank Ltd., the South Indian Bank Ltd, the erstwhile Bank of Cochin Ltd. etc., and that presently doing the same work for State Bank of India, Federal Bank Ltd. etc and therefore, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance because the assessee is engaged in production. 3. The Appellate Tribunal relying on Commissioner of Income-tax.v. Shaw Wallace & Co.. Ltd. ((1993) 201 ITR 17) held that the assessee is an industrial undertaking and hence is entitled to invest allowance on computer division. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue submits before us that the case of the assessee is nit by the exclusory clause under sub-s.(2) Clause (b) sub-clause (iii) of S.32A of the Act, inasmuch as under item 22, read with Explanation in the list in the Eleventh Schedule, the expression "office machines and apparatus" includes data processing which article is excluded for the purpose of investment allowance. 5. The question for consideration is: what are the requisite conditions under S.32A to claim investment allowance? If a machinery or plant owned by the assessee which is installed in any other industrial undertaking for the purposes of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing not being an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule investment allowance can be Claimed under S.32A in respect of such machinery or plant. If a machinery or plant owned by the assessee which is installed in any other industrial undertaking for the purposes of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing not being an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule investment allowance can be Claimed under S.32A in respect of such machinery or plant. The first question for consideration is: whether the assessee -company is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of sub-s.(2) Clause (b) sub-clause (iii) of S.32A of the Act. 6. In Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., (supra) the Calcutta High Court following the cases of C.I.T. v. Dastacons (P) Ltd, ((1985) 155 ITR 166), Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1963 SC 791) and Name Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise ((1990) 183 ITR 577) held that the computations and statements that a computer brings out after processing technical and commercial data which are fed into the computer as inputs are entirely different in content from the inputs fed into the computer and therefore, the assessee- company is an industrial undertaking. The nature of the activity carried on by the assessee-company being identical to that carried on by the Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., (supra), we quite agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., (supra) that after processing technical and commercial data which are fed into the computer as inputs the computations and statements that a computer brings out are entirely different in content from the inputs fed into the computer and, therefore, the assessee-company can be said to be engaged in the production of mechanically prepared information, which is collected from the raw data being fed into the computer. 7. The finding on the question whether the assessee-company is an industrial undertaking, is a finding of fact (see C.I.T. v. Tiecicon (P)Ltd., -(1987) 168 ITR 744 (SC)). The next important question is: whether the article or tiling produced by the assessee -company is covered by item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. As already pointed out, the assessee-company is engaged in producing mechanically prepared informations coming out in sheets, the computations and statements brought out by a computer after processing technical and commercial data which are fed into the computer as inputs, as per the requirements of various customers. As already pointed out, the assessee-company is engaged in producing mechanically prepared informations coming out in sheets, the computations and statements brought out by a computer after processing technical and commercial data which are fed into the computer as inputs, as per the requirements of various customers. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacture of any office machines and apparatus used for data processing within the meaning of Explanation to item 22 in the list in the Eleventh schedule. If the assessee were engaged in the manufacture of office machines and apparatus which expression includes all machines and apparatus used in the commercial and other establishments for data processing, then the case of the assessee would have fallen under the exclusory clause. The assessing officer held that computer itself is an office appliance. The Bombay High Court in C.I.T. v. International Computers Ltd., ((1981) 131 ITR 1) and in C.I.T. v. IBM World Trade Corporation ((1986) 161 ITR 673) held that data processing machines are not office appliances and are entitled to development rebate under S.33 of the Act. 8. To our mind, the question is not the one whether the computer owned by the assessee-company is an office appliance, but the question for consideration is whether the assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of an item, excluded under sub-s.2 (b)(iii) of S.32A of the Act, read with Explanation to item 22 in the list in Eleventh Schedule. Under Sub-s.(2)(b)(iii), investment allowance can be claimed under S.32A, if any machinery or plant installed in any industrial undertaking for the purposes of manufacture or production of any article or thing which are not specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. As already held by us, the assessee-company is engaged in producing mechanically prepared informations to be supplied to various parties after processing data, furnished by them in raw form which is fed into the computer as an input. The assessee-company is, therefore, not engaged in the manufacture of any "office machines and apparatus' within the meaning of item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. The assessee-company is, therefore, not engaged in the manufacture of any "office machines and apparatus' within the meaning of item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. To say that the activity of the assessee-company is covered by item 22, read with Explanation in the list in the Eleventh Schedule, the Revenue has to establish that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of production of "office machines and apparatus,' as described under item 22. It is the manufacture and production of office machines and apparatus used for data processing which is excluded under item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule and not the activity of producing computations and statements after processing datas furnished by various parties, which are fed into the computer as inputs. It is here that the assessing officer fell into an error. The position would have been different if the assessee were engaged in the manufacture and production of office machines and apparatus, which within the meaning of Explanation to item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule which includes data processing, is an excluded item. The assessee-company is engaged only in producing the information required by the customers through data processing and not in the manufacture or production of the 'office machines and apparatus', which are used for data processing. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred under S.256(1) of the Act in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.