Ashok Bhan, J.
1. At the instance of the Revenue, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that cold storage business is covered under the language of Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that machinery installed in cold storage is entitled to the investment allowance ?'
2. The assessee-firm started a cold storage business during the accounting year ended on March 31, 1979, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee claimed investment allowance amounting to Rs. 44,370 in respect of the machinery and plant of the cold storage business. The claim made by the assessee was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer holding that investment allowance was admissible only in respect of the industrial undertaking in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing and that 'cold storage' was not covered by the provisions of Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act which are as under :
'32A. (2) The ship or aircraft or machinery or plant referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be the following namely :--..... (ii) in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purposes of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing ; or'
3. The assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this court in CIT v. Yamuna Cold Storage [1981] 129 ITR 729, and its own decision in the case of ITO v. S. Warriam Singh Cold Storage dismissed the appeal. It was held that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance claimed by it. At the instance of the Revenue, the question reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, has been referred to this court for its opinion.
4. In spite of service and issuance of actual date notice, there is no representation of behalf of the assessee.
5. The view taken by the Tribunal in its earlier case of S. Warriam Singh Cold Stores was affirmed by this court in CIT v. S. Warriam Singh Cold Stores . It was held that machinery or plant installed in the business of cold storage will be covered under Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) for the purpose of admissibility of deduction under Section 32A(1) by way of investment allowance. It specifically dissented from the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mittal Ice and Cold Storage v. CIT : [1986]159ITR18(MP) and the Calcutta High Court in S. B. Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]166ITR646(Cal) . Mr. B. S. Gupta, senior advocate, appearing for the Revenue, argued that in view of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]191ITR656(SC) and the later decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Everest Cold Storage : [1996]220ITR241(MP) , the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Nandlal Cold Storage : [1993]199ITR327(All) and the Patna High Court in CIT v. Pawansut Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. : [1997]225ITR51(Patna) , the decision rendered by this court in S. Warriam Singh's case needs reconsideration.
6. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd's case : [1991]191ITR656(SC) , does indicate that the view taken by this court may not be correct. Though the apex court in the aforesaid case was dealing with a different provision of law the interpretation put on that provision shall have a bearing on the interpretation put on section 32A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. There is no specific overruling of the view taken by this court or approving the view taken by other courts from which this court had dissented. Prima facie, we are of the view that the view expressed by this court in Yamuna Cold Storage's case and S. Warriam Singh's case needs reconsideration by a larger Bench. The question referred to us along with the statement of the case be placed before the larger Bench for final disposal.
7. We would request the Chief Justice to constitute the larger Bench at an early date as this question is arising in a number of cases pending for disposal in this court.