R. RANGAYYA, A.M. assessee firm runs poultry farm. For asst. yr. 1983-84 it claimed investment allowance on cages that have been installed in premises for housing chicks on ground that they constituted plant. ITO, however, held that cages cannot be classified as plant and machinery and so investment allowance was not admissible. On appeal Commissioner (A) upheld view of ITO that cages to house chicks could not be considered as plant and machinery in appellant' s case. assessee is now in appeal before us contending that lower authorities were not correct in rejecting claim for investment allowance on cages. It may be noted that assessee pressed its claim for investment allowance only in respect of cages and not in respect of building in which such cages were fixed. Shri K.R. Ramamani ld. representative of assessee contends that word plant has been given wide meaning. Plant in its ordinary sense includes whatever apparatus used by business man for carrying on business excepting his stock in trade. As cages are specially designed to house chicks to get maximum output from them, they should be treated as plant utilised in assessee's business. According to him, earlier, farmers were using range method and deep litter methods for constructing sheds to accommodate chicks. Later after scientific development and technology of rearing chicks, cage system has been introduced. On basis of this method it is stated birds are allowed to live in restricted space so that there can be better output and maximum utility of bird. disease control is also better. It is stated that there are different types of cages like brooder cages, grower cages and layer cages. scientific studies, it is stated has shown that output is higher when they are housed in such cages. Certain copies of technical publications by name Deejay Technical Bulletin has also been filed to support assessee's claim. Photographs of cages used in assessee's business are also produced before us. departmental representative, on other hand contends that cages are nothing but contraptions to keep birds and they are nothing different from cattle shed where cattle are kept or cages used to keep animals in zoos. departmental representative submitted that they fall more under description of sheds and buildings rather than plant and machinery. He accordingly contends that lower authorities are correct in not treating cages as plant and machinery. In our opinion, there is substance in assessee s claim. word 'plant' used in IT Act should be given very wide meaning. definition of word 'plant under s. 43(3) of IT Act is only inclusive one and not exhaustive one. In Webster dictionary meaning of plant is given as under: "The machinery, apparatus fixtures etc. employed in carrying on trade or mechanical or other industrial business, electric-light plant fishing plant etc. In commercial sense plant may include real estate and also else that represents capital invested in means of carrying on business exclusive of raw material or manufactured products. Supreme Court had occasion to go into question as to content of word plant in CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel 1973 CTR (SC) 480: (1971) 82 ITR 4 4 (SC) In course of that judgment Supreme Court referred to meaning of word plant and held that sanitary and pipeline fittings would fall within scope of expression plant Supreme Court held at page 47 of report as follows: "Now it is well-settled that where definition of word has not been given, it must be construed in its popular sense if it is word of every day use. Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with subject- matter with which statute is dealing, would attribute to it. In present case, s. 10(5)of Indian IT Act, 1922 enlarges definition of word plant by including in it words which have already been mentioned before. very fact that even books have been included shows that meaning intended to be given to plant is wide. word includes is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge meaning of words of phrases occurring in body of statute When it is so used, these words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import, but also those things which interpretation clause declares that they shall include." In case of Jarrold vs. John Good& Sons (40 TC 681) movable partition were held as plant. In CIT vs. Union Bank of India (1979) 120 ITR 270 (Mad) safe deposit vaults installed in bank were considered as plant on which development rebate will be allowable. Even fencing in oil refinery has come within scope of word 'plant' in CIT vs. Caltex Oil Refinery (1976)102 ITR 260 (Bom). Considering wide meaning that is given to word 'plant we have no doubt in our mind, that cages which are used in assessee's business for housing birds in order to get better output from them, will fall within scope of word 'plant'. Whether assessee will be eligible for investment allowance or not, will depend on fact whether various conditions under s. 32A have been satisfied or not. As this has not been gone into either by ITO or by Commissioner (A), we remit back matter to ITO to decide issue of allowability or otherwise of investment allowance, after considering cages installed by assessee for rearing birds as plant. next ground in appeal is that Commissioner (A) erred in holding that higher depreciation applicable Class III factory buildings should not be allowed on poultry farm building belonging to appellant. While deciding this issue Commissioner (A) followed his order for earlier year 1982-83. For that year, it was held by Tribunal that building in which poultry business was carried on by assessee cannot be classified as factory building. Accordingly claim was rejected. Following respectfully decision of Tribunal for asst. yr. 1982-83 in ITA No. 2056(Mad)/1984, we upheld action of lower authorities in rejecting assessee s claim. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** SIDDARTH AGENCIES v. INCOME TAX OFFICER