JUDGMENT
S.P. Bharucha, J.
1. The first question that arises in this reference at the instance of the assessee reads thus :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 12,500 in its assessment for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 ?”
2. A similar question at the instance of the assessee arose in Income-tax Reference No. 219 of 1976, Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. (No. 2) v. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 281 (Bom), which we have just disposed of. The statement of facts here being as inadequate as the one in that reference, this question is returned unanswered.
3. The second question reads thus :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee is entitled to development rebate in respect of the air-conditioners installed in the conference hall in its factory at Khopoli and/or electrical lighting installations in the dispensary building and factory yard for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 ?”
4. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the development rebate under section 33 on the cost of four room air-conditioners installed in the conference hall in the assessee’s factory premises, on the cost of the electric installation in the dispensary building in the factory premises and on the cost of lighting in the factory yard. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the view taken by the taxing authorities for this reason : “No doubt they were installed in the factory premises but their purpose was altogether different. Since they were not used for the purposes of the factory, there is no question of allowing development rebate thereon”.
5. It appears that the office premises of the assessee are also within its factory premises. There is no finding as to the purpose of the conference hall, namely, whether it was used exclusively for the purposes of the office, or exclusively for the purposes of the factory, or for both purposes, in which case what its dominant use was ? In the circumstances, we cannot hold that the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the air-conditioners installed in the conference hall was entitled to development rebate.
6. In so far as the dispensary in concerned, it is situated in a separate building within the factory premises. Mr. Toprani, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that it was there to render medical assistance to the factory workers, which the assessee was bound to provide. Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the obligatory medical assistance was only that of an urgent nature and limited to first-aid. In our view, the dispensary would provide such aid as the assessee was bound to provide to the factory workers and, perhaps, something more. In the ordinary nature of things, the number of factory workers being larger than that of office workers, it is reasonable to hold that its dominant purpose was to render medical assistance to the factory workers. Besides, it does not fall within the exclusions provided for by sub-section (6) of section 33, upon which Dr. Balasubramanian relied, for the dispensary is not in office premises nor can it be said to be office premises.
7. It is difficult to comprehend why the Tribunal disallowed the claim for development rebate in respect of the cost incurred on lighting in the factory yard and, fairly, Dr. Balasubramanian did not press this aspect.
8. Accordingly, the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in so far as it concerns the cost of the electrical lighting installations in the dispensary building and the factory yard. In so far as it concerns the air-conditioners installed in the hall, it is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.