JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J.-The assessee is engaged in business of manufacture of enzymes and pharmaceutical ingredients. matter pertains to return of income for assessment year 2003-04. records reveal that during relevant assessment year, assessee has incurred certain expenditure on capital towards cost of machinery for sum of Rs. 7,82,25,431. Assessing Officer noticed that said amount included sum of Rs. 2,72,59,589 incurred towards three items of machinery. Assessing Officer also noticed that said three items of machinery have not been installed and commissioned and, therefore, assessee is not entitled for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and, hence, held that such expenditure does not amount to expenditure incurred during that period. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore, as well as Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with said conclusion reached by Assessing Officer and have held that Assessing Officer is not justified in not allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of Act inasmuch as words which are not provided in statute are sought to be read into, by Assessing Officer. We do not find any ground to disagree with conclusion reached by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal. What section 35(2AB) of Act speaks of is (a) development of facilities; (b) incurring of expenditure by assessee for development of such facilities; (c) approval of facility by prescribed authority, which is DSIR; and (d) allowance of weighted deduction on expenditure so incurred by assessee. On plain reading of said provision makes it amply clear that assessee has to develop facility by incurring expenditure for scientific research and he will have to file application before prescribed authority, who after following proper procedure, will allow application or otherwise and assessee would be entitled for weighted deduction in respect of all expenditure so incurred. provision nowhere suggests or implies that machinery is required to be installed and commissioned before expiry of relevant previous year. provision postulates approval of research and development facility, which implies that development facility shall be in existence, which in turn, presupposes that assessee must have incurred expenditure in this behalf. Appellate Tribunal has rightly concluded that in case if interpretation of Assessing Officer is accepted, it creates absurdity in provision inasmuch as words which are not provided in statute are to be read into, which is against settled proposition of law with regard to plain and simple meaning of provision. plain and homogenous reading of provisions would suggest that entire expenditure incurred in respect of research and development has to be allowed for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of Act. Even on facts, it has been found by Assessing Officer that installation certificate had been issued on March 31, 2004, by one Mr. Virupaksha (concerned officer) evidencing that three scientific machines were installed. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with orders passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal fails and same stands dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU) v. Biocon Ltd