JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Two groups of appeals are placed before us for hearing. The first group involves the interpretation of identical words occurring in Section 80-HH and Section 84 viz., "manufacture or produce articles" whereas the second group is concerned with the words "construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing" in Section 32-A of the Income-tax Act. Civil Appeals 4238-4240 of 1983 can be said to be representative of the first group whereas the second group of appeals comprise Civil Appeals 4239 to 4248 of 1992.

2. The first group of appeals is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of Orissa High Court answering the question referred to it under Section 256(2) in favour of the assessee. The question referred is to the following effect: "Whether on the facts found by the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to the benefit provided under Section 80-HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The assessment years concerned are 1974-75 and 1975-76. The respondent-assessee is a firm of contractors constituted for the purpose of construction of a dam in Orissa. It was constituted under a partnership deed dated January 14, 1972. It was given the contract of constructing a dam in Dhenkanal district which is a notified backward district for the purpose of Section 80-HH. In proceedings for assessment of its income for the relevant years, the respondent claimed the relief under the said provision. The Income-tax Officer allowed the same. The Commissioner of Income-tax however revised the order of the I.-T.O. to the extent of grant of relief under Section 80HH. He was of the opinion that the assessee engaged in construction of a dam cannot be said to be engaged in manufacture or production of an article inasmuch as "a dam is constructed and not manufactured. It would be absurd to say that the assessee is manufacturing dam or the dam is capable of being sold. In short, the firm cannot be held as an industrial undertaking merely because it has to undertake certain manufacturing process in the course of construction of the irrigation project". He also referred to the fact that the assessee-firm was constituted only for the purpose of constructing a particular dam, on the completion of which work the firm would cease to exist automatically. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed on the following reasoning and findings :

(a) The activity of constructing a dam can be characterised as an industrial activity. The work undertaken by the assessee-firm can, therefore, be called an "industrial undertaking".

(b) The word "articles" occurring in clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-HH is not confined to movables nor to small things produced in large quantities.

(c) The activity of construction of a dam can be characterised as processing as well as manufacturing.

3. At the instance of the revenue the aforesaid question was referred for the opinion of the High Court. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the assessee-firm constituted for the purpose of constructing a dam for storing water can be called an "industrial undertaking". The High Court opined that the definition of "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act can well be relied upon to ascertain the meaning of the expression "industrial undertaking", inasmuch as the said expression has not been defined in the Act or the Rules. The High Court also agreed with the Tribunal that the word "article" need not be confined to mere movables and that "there would be no justification to hold that a dam is not an article in that sense of the term". The correctness of the said view is questioned in these appeals.

4. The learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri J. Rama Murthy attacked mainly the opinion of the High Court with respect to the meaning attached by it to the word "article". He submitted that the activity of constructing a dam cannot and does not fall within the words "manufacture or produce arti