- (1.) Three questions have come up for answer by us. Those are as follows : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of production of coal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the order passed under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 1982-83 is bad in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals for the assessment year 1982-83/1983-84 as infructuous in view of their finding that the revision order under section 263 of the Commissioner of Income-tax was bad in law?"
(2.) We make it clear that questions Nos. 2 and 3 arise because of the peculiar course that the assessment took in regard to the assessment year in question. At first, from the Income-tax Officer's assessment, the Revenue made an application for revision and from the order passed on revision, the Tribunal was approached. However, before that matter could be settled, pursuant to the revising order a fresh assessment was made which again reached the Tribunal.
(3.) Thus, questions Nos. 2 and 3 have become largely academic. It is only with regard to the first question that we are really concerned here. The section in regard to which the assessee claimed itself to be an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of production of coal is that relating to investment allowance, i.e., section 32A.;