Judgment M.R. Calla, J.-These two appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act which are directed against the order dt. 1st Feb., 2001, passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur in ITANos. 1416 & 1421(Jp)/1994 tor the asst. yr. 1990-9 1 and the order dt. 2nd Feb., 2001, in ITA No. 554(Jp)/1997 for the asst. yr. 199 1-92. Since the question involved in both these appeals is common question based on identical facts we propose to decide both these appeals by this common judgment and order as under: 2. The only question involved in this case is as to whether the area in question situated in the District of Jodhpur is an industrially backward area or not. There is no dispute that the production of the articles had begun in the instant case between 31st Dec., 1980, and before 3rd April, 1990. Once this factual position is not disputed under Section 8OHH(2) of the IT Act, it has to be taken as an industrially backward area for the purpose of this Act. 3. The 8th Schedule under Section 80-IA(2)(iv)(b) is the list of Industrially Backward States and Union Territories and this list includes the State of Rajasthan and against the State of Rajasthan the industrially backward districts have been mentioned which include Jodhpur, the respondent is a hospital in Jodhpur. 4. Theargument of Mr. Bhandawat that the urban agglomeration has been excluded vide Notification No. 50165, dt. 19th Dec., 1986. That may be so, but the factual and uncontroverted position with regard to the date of starting the production in this hospital is before 7th Dec., 1984 and in any case it is before 1986. Therefore, the appellant cannot invoke the benefit of the notification with regard to the exclusion of urban agglomeration. We do not find any force in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.