( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1979-80 : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the Income-tax Officer's order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80 ?"

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the Income-tax Officer completed the original assessment for the assessment year under reference on April 24, 1982. In the original assessment, he allowed investment allowance under Section 32a of the Act on the machinery and plant of cold storage and also allowed deduction in respect of profits and gains from the cold storage under Section 80hh of the Act. Later, the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that such allowance and deduction was wrongly allowed to the assessee and it was a mistake apparent from the record. He, therefore, by passing an order under Section 154 of the Act on September 6, 1984, withdrew the allowance and the deduction.

( 3 ) THE assessee unsuccessfully appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter came in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the said mistake was not apparent from the record since the dispute involved was debatable, if the cold storage could be taken as an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Sections 32a and 80hh. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal. It held that the question involved being debatable was not so simple as to constitute a glaring mistake. The application of Section 154 was held to be not justified.

( 4 ) AT the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee and Mr. N. K. Poddar as amicus curiae has assisted the court.

( 5 ) THE only question which calls for determination is whether the cold storage is an industrial company or not. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Delhi Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 656 has held that a cold storage is not an industrial company for the purpose of Section 2 (7) (c) of the Finance Act, 1973, and Schedule I thereto.

( 6 ) SECTION 2 (7) (c) of the Finance Act, 1973, defines "industrial company" thus : "'industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. "

( 7 ) THERE the Supreme Court held as follows (at page 660) : "we have already noted that 'processing' is a term of wide amplitude and has various aspects and meanings. In common parlance, 'processing' is understood as an action which brings forth some change or alteration of the goods or material which is subjected to the act of processing. The dictionary meaning of the term is not very different from this meaning in one sense, while various other meanings of wider amplitude are also available. The view taken by the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts did not find favour with the three-judge Bench of this court and, in clear terms, the judgment indicates that processing involves bringing into existence a different substance from what the material was at the commencement of the process. In a cold storage, vegetables, fruits and several other articles which require preservation by refrigeration are stored. While, as a result of long storage, scientific examination might indicate loss or moisture content, that is not sufficient for holding that the stored articles have undergone a process within the meaning of Section 2 (7) (c) of the Finance Act, 1973. The three-judge Bench decision must be taken to have overruled the view of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Farrukhabad Cold Storage [1977] 107 ITR 816 and that of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Radha Nagar Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 66. The appeal has, therefore,