( 1 ) THIS is a reference under the provisions of Section 256 (2) of income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') from the Revenue seeking opinion of this Court on the following question of law: "on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assesses is not entitled to investment allowance u/s 32a of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the cost of the machinery?" ( 2 ) THE facts manifesting from the case papers, relevant to be taken into consideration are: the assessee, namely, M/s Biyar Rubbers (P) Ltd. , is an Industrial unit having its production unit at Peenya Industrial Estate, Bangalore. The assessee was originally assessed and assessment was completed on 28-3-1988 under Section 148 (3) of the Act determining the Income at Rs. 5,42,660/- as against the loss returned at rs. 8,02,919/ -. It was assailed by the assessee in CIT (A) Appeal, who set aside the assessment on 10-3--1989 and directed reassessment after giving opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim regarding depreciation and investment allowance claimed by it. The assessee had claimed depreciation and investment allowance on machinery known as 'alfred Herbert Intermix Machine' used for preparing sheet rubber from raw rubber, carbon black etc. Considering the said question Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation as also investment allowance. The CIT (A) set aside the assessment and had directed the AO to re-examine the assessee. In the reassessment, consequent to setting aside the earlier assessment, the AO conducted detailed enquiry examining all relevant documents and evidence tendered before him and by his elaborate order sustained disallowance. The matter was further taken up in appeal before CIT (A), but at that stage the assessee gave up its claim relating to depreciation and in fact, conceded that the machinery under consideration was not actually put to use during the relevant assessment year. However, it continued to press its claim that investment allowance under Section 32a was, however, allowable on the costs of machine, in as much as, machine was installed during the relevant assessment year. ( 3 ) THE CIT (A) considering the grounds so urged and also reassessment order of the AO noted that the evidence established that the machine was actually fixed in the premises by the end of december, 1984 (Accounting year of the assessee which ended on 31-3-1985 ). ( 3 ) THE CIT (A) considering the grounds so urged and also reassessment order of the AO noted that the evidence established that the machine was actually fixed in the premises by the end of december, 1984 (Accounting year of the assessee which ended on 31-3-1985 ). At the same time the CIT (A) noted that the AO had appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and recorded a right finding that the electrical energy was actually made available only in the month of September 1985 and no such electrical energy was available prior to 31 -3-1985 and thus the machine was not put in use. Finally, the CIT (A) concluded that the machine could not be held to have been 'installed' by 31 -3-1985. Consequently, the claim of the assessee regarding investment allowance for the relevant assessment period ending 31-3-1985 was negated and order of the AO was confirmed. ( 4 ) NOT satisfied with the said finding the assessee was in appeal before the ITAT, who reconsidered the grounds of the assessee in the light of the material evidence on. record. Applying its mind seriously to the meaning of the word 'installed' as appearing in Section 32a, ITAT held that the work 'installed' used in Section 32a would merely mean machine is placed in proper position for being used and that lack of electricity by itself could not affect the eligibility to claim the investment allowance. However, on other facts which were discussed by the ao, the ITAT held the machinery could not have been held 'installed' in the relevant assessment year and on that ground the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance. This opinion was confirmed by the itat and taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had referred to only one type of machine, whereas the said machine was the part of other machine which were required to accomplish the function of the plant. In other words, it was noticed the machine by itself was capable of yielding production as it was caused production, it depended upon other machinery required to complete the manufacturing plant. Besides, it noted that machinery could not have become functional in the absence of supply of electricity supply by 30 HP capacity -1500 rpm and compressor which was acquired only after 15-4-1985 as evidenced by the delivery note issued by supplier, ie. , M/s Remi Sales and Engineering. Besides, it noted that machinery could not have become functional in the absence of supply of electricity supply by 30 HP capacity -1500 rpm and compressor which was acquired only after 15-4-1985 as evidenced by the delivery note issued by supplier, ie. , M/s Remi Sales and Engineering. The other components of machinery like electrical power cable, switch gears and other heavier items of electrical, were also acquired subsequently. It also recorded that electrical energy was supplied only on 11 -3-1985, but the assessee had tampered the said documents falsifying the relevant date 11-9-1985 as 11-3-1985. It also noted that civil work like roof of the building was also not laid during the relevant assessment yean but it was only laid in the month of march 1985. Considering all these circumstances ITAT held that the machinery could not have been put in a position to be ready for use by the end of March 1985 and hence assessee was not entitled to investment allowance. ( 5 ) BEFORE us the Learned Senior Counsel for assessee sri Sarangan, appearing for Sri S. P. Bhat, would contend that the assessee would be entitled to investment allowance as it had established that the machinery was installed. In the instant case, the machinery, namely, Alfred Herbert Intermix Machine used for preparing sheet rubber from raw rubber, carbon black, etc. , was actually installed by june 1985 and therefore, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance for the assessment year ending 31 -3-1985. He assailed the order of the AO vide Annexure-A contending that he had misconstrued the meaning of ward 'installed' and had also ignored that the machine in question having been fixed had become functional and the investment made by the assessee for its acquisition was allowable as investment allowance during the assessment year ending 31-3-1985 as provided by Section 32 A of the Act. ( 6 ) SRI Sheshachala, Learned Counsel for the Revenue would contend that in the instant case the assessee had not only mis-led the ao but had also falsified the documents relating to supply of electrical energy to the manufacturing plan. The document issued by the electricity Board shows that the electrical energy was supplied on 11-9-1985, but the same was tampered to read as 11-3-1985. Also, the machine in question was not capable of producing unless supported by other machineries. The document issued by the electricity Board shows that the electrical energy was supplied on 11-9-1985, but the same was tampered to read as 11-3-1985. Also, the machine in question was not capable of producing unless supported by other machineries. Therefore, the assessee who was installing the production plant would be entitled to investment allowance on proof that during the relevant assessment year the plant had become functional, complete in all respects. ( 7 ) WE have considered the grounds so urged and bestowed our concern to the following case laws relied by both sides. Per Assessee, in the case of TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. , BIHAR vs collector OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA, (2005) 3 SCC 528 the Apex Court at para-13 and 14 held thus: "the meaning of the word 'installed' as given in webster's New International English Dictionary is 'to set up or fix in position for use or service as to install a heating or lighting system'. The Shorter oxford Dictionary in English gives as one of the meanings 'to place an apparaturs, a system of lighting, heating, or the like in position for service or use. ' Much the same meaning is given in Fund and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary 'to place in position for service or use as to install hot water system. ' in CIT vs SRI RAMA V1las SERVICE (P) LTD. , ITR at p. 27 it was held, putting aside the examples given in the dictionary meaning to explain the scope of the word 'installed', that 'installed' would certainly mean 'to place an appartus in position for service or use'. A bus or a lorry is a plant within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (vi-b) of the Income Tax act, 1922. Whether, when a bus or a lorry is purchased and is also put on the road in the course of the business that the assessees carried on, it could be said that the requirement of installation has been satisfied? That the bus or lorry has been set up for use or service when it is put on the road seems clear and in that sense buses or lorries were installed. The stationary test of installation was satisfied by the assessee because such installation as the buses and lorries were capable of was completed. That the bus or lorry has been set up for use or service when it is put on the road seems clear and in that sense buses or lorries were installed. The stationary test of installation was satisfied by the assessee because such installation as the buses and lorries were capable of was completed. " ( 8 ) IN the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, madras vs MIS MOHAMMAD All, AR UNA MILLS LIMITED: inter VENER, the Apex Court held in sub-para (iii) and (iv) thus: "that the expression 'installed' in the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via) did not necessarily mean fixed in position but was also used in the sense of 'induct' or 'introduce' or 'placing an apparatus! in position for service of use. ' when an engine was fixed in a vehicle it was installed with in the meaning of the expression in clauses (vi) and (via) of Section 10 (2 ). That, therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction of the extra depreciation allowance under the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via) of Section 10 (2 ). " ( 9 ) IN the light of the above exposition of the word 'installed' by the Apex Court, it will be gainful to refer to the relevant provisions of section 32a itself, which reads thus: "32a. Investment allowance.- (1) In respect of a ship or an aircraft or machinery or plant specified in sub-Section (2), which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used far the purpose of the business carried on by him, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Section, be allowed a deduction, in respect of the previous year in which the ship or aircraft was acquired or the machinery or plant was installed or, if the ship, aircraft, machinery or plant is first put to use in the immediately succeeding previous year, then, in respect of that previous year, of a sum by way of investment allowance equal to twenty-five per cent of the actual cost of the ship, aircraft, machinery or plant to the assessee. " ( 10 ) IT is thus clear that when the assessee claims that the machinery has been installed, he should establish the date of acquisition of that machine; its functional capability to produce yield for which it was acquired; whether the said machine is complete in itself to produce yield without being dependent on other machines or accessories and as to when the said machine had become funtional in all respects. If the claim of the assessee is that tike machine is part of the plant then the assessee would be entitled to such investment allowance not singly in respect of each machinery but cm completion of installation of entire plant and on proof about the functional capability to produce yield by the plant in its entirety. In case the machine is complete itself then the date on which the machinery became capable of producing and in case of plant, the date on which the plant becomes capable of producing yield will be the date relevant for admissibility of the investment allowance as permissible under the provisions of Section 32a of the Act. ( 11 ) THE word used in Section 'first put to use' in the immediate preceding year would indicate that not only putting in place of the machinery or plant but it should be capable of production and should have been put to use. In the instant case, it is noticed that the machine 'alfred Herbert Intermix Machine' was one of the machine required forming part of the plant for production of the product, which was to be produced by the assessee. The machine by itself was not capable of such production. Other machines were required to complete the plant. Thus, merely installing of 'alfred Herbert Intermix Machine', was not sufficient as the 'plant' would not have become functional ready to yield the product. ( 12 ) DISTINCTION has to be drawn between machine and plant. Had the assess claimed that the said machine was the only machine required for production, the case would have been different. But, factual finding of the AO on the basis of the evidence tendered before him is that the said machine was a part of the plant and hence it will be of no consequence as to when the said machine was fixed, placed in use or even installed. But, factual finding of the AO on the basis of the evidence tendered before him is that the said machine was a part of the plant and hence it will be of no consequence as to when the said machine was fixed, placed in use or even installed. Because, its installation by itself would not have made the plant functional to yield the production. ( 13 ) WE, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee would be entitled to benefit of investment allowance under Section 32a of the act only on proof that the machinery was not only installed but was functional or was capable of being put to use or was capable of producing the product for which it was acquired. The date from which such machinery becomes capable of producing would be relevant date for determining entitlement of assessee to investment allowance. On facts, it is noticed that for the assessment year ending 31-3-1985 the said machine was not capable of being put to use, even though the evidence shows that it has fixed devoid of electrical energy to make it functional. ( 14 ) IN the circumstances, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against assess. The reference is ordered accordingly. No costs.