MADAN B. LOKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion:- "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in rejecting the Department's plea that investment allowance is not allowable to a company engaged in the business of construction. " ( 2 ) A perusal of the paper book shows that the Assessee had three contracts in the relevant previous year. They were:- (i) For the construction of Regional training Centre, Okhla, New Delhi, (ii) Construction of Bridge at Jammu, (iii) construction of Quarters for Hindustan Prefabs Ltd. ( 3 ) THE Assessing Officer was of the view that investment allowance claimed by the Assessee was not admissible and, therefore, levied appropriate tax. ( 4 ) THE Assessee filed an appeal which came to be allowed on this issue. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which upheld the view taken by the Commissioner. ( 5 ) WE have been shown two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, commissioner of Income Tax vs. N. C. Budhiraja and Co. and Anr. (1993) 204 ITR 412 and Builders Association of India vs. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877. ( 6 ) IN N. C. Budhiraja case the Supreme Court held that the words "construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule" occurring in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 32a of the Act do not take in construction of a dam, a building, a bridge or a road and the like because these constructions cannot be brought within the purview of "article or things". ( 7 ) IN Builders Association of India it was pointed out by learned counsel that three important circumstances were not brought to the notice of the Supreme court by learned counsel appearing for the Assessee in N. C. Budhiraja. The three important circumstances were enumerated by the Supreme Court and after a detailed discussion, the Supreme Court concluded that even if these three circumstances had been brought to its notice, it would not have led to a different result. The three important circumstances were enumerated by the Supreme Court and after a detailed discussion, the Supreme Court concluded that even if these three circumstances had been brought to its notice, it would not have led to a different result. In other words, the decision rendered in N. C. Budhiraja was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. ( 8 ) FROM this it follows that construction such as that carried out by the assessee, namely, construction of buildings or bridges or quarters etc. cannot be construed to mean manufacture or production of any article or thing. Therefore, it must be held that the Assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of the investment allowance. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, we are of the view that the question of law referred for our opinion must be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the Assessee. It must be held that investment allowance is not allowable to the Assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly.