Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This order will dispose of two appeals I.T.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of 2003, involving common questions of law and fact in the case of the same assessee. I.T.A. No. 8 of 2003, is for the assessment year 1989-90, whereas I.T.A. No. 9 of 2003, is in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. 2. Since the arguments were advanced in I.T.A. No. 8 of 2003, the facts are being taken from the same. 3. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal") dated June 20, 2002. 4. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of execution and completion of building contracts. For the assessment year 1989-90, its claim for deduction under Section 32AB of the Act was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no manufacturing activity had been carried out. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, but did not challenge the disallowance under Section 32AB of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee and the Revenue preferred cross appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in which the assessee sought to challenge the disallowance under Section 32AB by way of raising an additional ground of appeal. This ground of appeal was disallowed on the ground that the matter stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budhamja and Co. 5. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any substantial judgment of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view. 6. Since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.