Y. R. MEENA, J. ( 1 ) ON an application under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion, set out at pages 2 and 3 of the statement of case :" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in including the amount of Rs. 10,76,283 representing the value of incomplete jobs for the computation of capital for the purpose of calculating the relief under Section 80] of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment of the assessment year 1970-71, should be made also on the facts and realities which was not prevalent during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the term 'agreement' as envisaged in Clause (b) of Rule 19a (3) also included an agreement which provides the facility of extending on a later date, the limitation period of repayment of the loan, on the basis of a mutual agreement between the debtors and the creditors, though the said extension was not made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not considering that the agreement of the loan should not provide for repayment of the loan within a period of less than seven years in order to have the credit under Section 80j read with Rule 19a of the Income-tax Rules ?" ( 2 ) THE relevant assessment year is 1970-71 for which the relevant accounting period ended on March 31, 1970. The assessee company has set up a cement plant at Vasantnagar, Andhra Pradesh, and the said cement plant commenced commercial production during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70. The original assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) of the Act on March 20, 1971. The assessee company has set up a cement plant at Vasantnagar, Andhra Pradesh, and the said cement plant commenced commercial production during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70. The original assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) of the Act on March 20, 1971. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 after serving notice under Section 148 on the ground that in the original assessment, the benefit of Section 80j has been allowed on the incomplete job to the tune of Rs. 10,76,283 treating the amount as capital employed. Therefore, the dispute is whether the benefit or relief under Section 80j of the Act can be allowed on the value of incomplete job. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee, Mr. J. P. Khaitan, submits that the apex court has considered this aspect in the case of CIT v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. [1997] 224 ITR 353. Their Lordships after considering whether Section 80j relief can be given on a workshop still under construction held that the amount representing the value of plant and machinery under construction could be taken into account in determining the capital employed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the view taken by the Income-tax Officer. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. their Lordships observed as under (page 361) :"we are of the opinion that the moment an asset is acquired or purchased for the purpose of the business, it is capital employed, though the asset as such is not actually utilised or used during the accounting year. In the chain of events, the earliest act or event is the purchase or acquisition of the asset. That by itself entitles the assessee to get the relief. The 'employment' of the capital is done or over. The subsequent or later events, including the actual user of the asset, have nothing to do in the matter. " ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the view taken by the apex court, we find no justification to interfere in the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. ( 7 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Revenue, admits that question No. 2 regarding the validity of the reassessment under Section 147 of the Act does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) QUESTIONS Nos. ( 7 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Revenue, admits that question No. 2 regarding the validity of the reassessment under Section 147 of the Act does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) QUESTIONS Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the issue whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the term "agreement" as envisaged in Clause (b) of Rule 19a (3) also includes an agreement which provides the facility of extending on a later date. The copies of the agreement as well as the modification in the amendment have not been placed in the paper book. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. [19951 212 ITR 653. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the assessment order. In the case of New India Industries Ltd. the issue before their Lordships was that for the purpose of surtax in the computation of capital, the loan which was taken was initially payable within seven years but subsequently that agreement was modified for repayment and it was permitted to repay the loan within eight years. Their Lordships held that when the term of the agreement was modified and provided for repayment beyond seven years, then that should be included in the capital computation for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Their Lordships, thus, upheld the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of this very assessee in surtax matter and thereafter the Gujarat High Court has followed the view taken in New India Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 181, for the purpose of relief under Section 80j in the case of this assessee, that is, in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. where they have quoted the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and the provisions of Section 80j and Rule 19a (3) (b) of the Act and observed that the language of these two provisions is in pari materia. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, following the view taken by the apex court in the case of New India Industries Ltd. [1995] 212 ITR 653, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal, that borrowed capital payable beyond seven years after amendment in the original agreement should be taken into account for capital computation for the purpose of relief under Section 80j of the Act of 1961. ( 12 ) IN the result, we answer questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2, as admitted by Mr. Mukherjee, does not arise out of the orders of the Tribunal. We decline to answer that question. ( 13 ) THE reference application is, accordingly, disposed of.