Summarize the following court judgment. vil Appeal No. 1314 (NT) of 1976. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.1975 of the Gujarat High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 160 of 1974. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar	 Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellant. J. Vellapaly	 Ms. A.K. Verma and J.B. Dadachanji for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA	 J. This appeal has been preferred on the basis of a certificate granted by the High 'Court of Gujarat under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act	 1961 (hereinafter re ferred to as the Act). The judgment appealed against is reported in Cellulose Products of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax	 Gujarat	 [1977] 110	 I.T.R. page 15 1. The respondent is a public limited company incorporated on April 14	 1989 mainly for the purpose of carrying on business of manufacturing chemical products. The Memorandum of Associa tion of the respondent company	 as is apparent from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax	 inter alia contains the following clause: "to carry on the business of manufacture of and dealer and importers and exporters in chemical products of any nature and kind whatsoever and particulary of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose (CMC)	 Cellulose Pulps and other chemical products. " The respondent was granted an industrial licence by the Central Government for the manufacture of Sodium Carboxy Methyl Cellulose (for short CMC). In pursuance of the said licence the respondent installed a Cellulose plant	 in which was manufactured Cellulose pulp which in its turn was meant to be used as a raw material for manufacture of CMC. This fact does not appear to have been in dispute that the re spondent began production of Cellulose pulp from March 18	 1961 in the said plant while the production of CMC was started from June 15	1961. 891 In the assessment year in question namely 1966 67	 the previous year of account being the financial year 1965 66 ending on March 31	 1966	 the respondent claimed relief contemplated by Section 84 of the Act (as it stood prior to its being deleted with effect from April 1	 1968 by Finance (No. The Income Tax Officer took the view that since the respondent had started production of Cellu lose pulp from March 18	 1961 it had begun to manufacture or produce finished articles or goods in the year ending on March 31	 1961 and consequently the assessment year 1961 62 was the first year in which the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 84. According to him	 the relief con templated by Section. 84 being available only for five years namely the assessment year 1961 62 and the four assessment years immediately succeeding as contemplated by Sub section (7) of Section 84 of the Act	 the respondent was not enti tled to the relief claimed in the assessment year 1966 67 which fell beyond the aforesaid period. This finding of the Income Tax Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The matter was taken by the respond ent in further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribu nal. The respondent 's contention that the production of Cellulose pulp during the month of March 1961 was a trial production was repelled by the Tribunal and a categorical finding was recorded by it that Cellulose pulp manufactured by the respondent during the month of March 1961 was a finished product which was a marketable commodity. On this view the Tribunal held that the respondent having begun production or manufacture of finished product which was capable of being sold in the market in the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1961 62	 the last year in which the respondent was entitled to get relief under sec tion 84 of the Act was the assessment year 1965 66 and the claim made by it for the said relief in the assessment year in question namely 1966 67 was not maintainable. The Tribu nal	 however	 on an application made in this behalf by the respondent referred the following question to the High Court of Gujarat for its opinion: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case	 the Tribunal was right in reject ing the assessee 's claim for relief under section 84 of the Act for the assessment year 1966 67?" The High Court by the judgment under appeal answered the question aforesaid in the negative	 that is	 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It held that even though the word "article" used in Subsection (7) of section 84 of the Act was undoubtedly an ordinary word employed by the legislature but in the context in which it was used and 892 looking to the object with which it was enacted it was obvious that it could only refer to the end product of the industrial undertaking as a whole where there was no phased programme of installation and construction. On this view the High Court found that the mere fact that the respondent started the production of Cellulose pulp which was an in termediate product on March 18	 1961 did not mean that the company had begun to produce or manufacture "articles" in the assessment year 1961 62. It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the Tribunal referred to above was essentially a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence and it was not open to the High Court in its advi sory jurisdiction to take a contrary view. For the respond ent	 on the other hand	 in support of the judgment appealed against	 it was urged by its learned counsel that inasmuch as section 84 of the Act contemplated grant of relief to a new undertaking	 it should be construed liberally so as to effectuate the object thereof. He maintained that since the undertaking established by the respondent was to manufacture CMC and the industrial licence had also been granted to it for the said purpose	 exemption under section 84 of the Act could be claimed by it only in the year during which CMC was actually manufactured and since it was so done during the assessment year 1962 63 exemption could not be claimed in the assessment year 1961 62	 notwithstanding the fact that Cellulose pulp for captive consumption was manufactured in that year. According to him	 therefore	 the period of five years contemplated by sub section (7) of section 84 of the Act would represent the assessment year 1962 63 and the four assessment years immediately succeeding and in this view of the matter the High Court was right in allowing the relief claimed by the respondent during the assessment year in question	 namely 1966 67. In the alternative	 he submitted that if ultimately the view of the Tribunal prevailed that the production had started in the assessment year 1961 62 then the disallowance of the relief in the 5th year namely in the assessment year in question should be restricted to the investment of the pulp factory and the respondent should not be denied the relief in respect of the investment exclu sively related to the CMC plant. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties	 we are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case committed an error in interfering with the conclusion of the tribunal. It 893 is settled law that a High Court hearing a reference under the Act does not exercise any appellate or revisional or supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal and that it acts purely in an advisory capacity. If the Tribunal after con sidering the evidence produced before it on a question of fact records its finding it cannot be interfered with in a reference by the High Court unless of course such finding was not supported by any evidence	 was perverse or patently unreasonable. In our opinion	 the finding of the Tribunal in the instant case did not suffer from any of these infirmi ties. The finding that the production of Cellulose pulp during the month of March 1961 was not a trial production and that Cellulose pulp as manufactured by the respondent was a finished product which was a marketable commodity was essentially a finding of fact based on appraisal of evi dence. It is true that Cellulose pulp constitutes raw material for manufacture of CMC but it has not been disputed before us by the learned counsel for the respondent that it was even by itself a finished marketable commodity. The circumstance that the industrial licence granted to the respondent was for the manufacture of CMC and not of Cellu lose pulp is	 in our opinion	 keeping in view the nature of the two articles	 not of much significance. In the same manner as a licence	 for instance	 for the manufacture of cloth includes the manufacture of cotton yarn	 an intermedi ate product necessary for manufacturing cloth	 the licence granted to the respondent for the manufacture of CMC includ ed the manufacture of Cellulose pulp which was an intermedi ate product to be used in its turn as a raw material for the manufacture of CMC. The relevant clause of the Memorandum of Association of the respondent company	 already quoted above	 is obviously wide in its amplitude	 It contemplates manufac ture of "chemical products of any nature and kind whatsoever and particularly of CMC	 Cellulose pulp and other chemical products". Manufacture of Cellulose pulp was thus indeed one of the objects of the company. The question involved had to be considered in this background and the Tribunal having done so and recorded the finding of fact referred to above the High Court obviously committed an error in holding that manufacture of Cellulose pulps during March 1961 was of no consequence and that the first year of production would be the assessment year 1962 63 when CMC was actually manufac tured. The decision of the Madras High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax	 Madras	 	 in view of what has been observed above on the facts of the instant case does not advance the case of the respondent any further than the reasons recorded in the judgment under appeal. 894 As regards the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent suffice it to say that the case on the basis of which this alternative submission is sought to be made was not set up before the Tribunal nor any such question was sought to be referred on the basis of which this alternative submission could be made. It cannot	 as such	 be permitted to be made in the present appeal. The submission that the provisions of section 84 of the Act should be construed liberally so as to effectuate the object thereof need detain us for long. It is only when there is any genuine doubt about the interpretation of a fiscal statute or where two opinions are capable of being formed that the rule of interpretation canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent may be taken to. In the instant case a plain reading of sub section (7) of section 84 of the Act makes it clear without any doubt that the period of five years was to start from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking began to manufacture or produce "articles". Since the language of the sub section is plain and admits of no ambiguity there is no scope of applying the aforesaid rule of interpretation. The question as to in which assessment year "the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles" is essentially a question to be decided on the facts of each case and on the basis of the evidence placed on record. In view of the foregoing discussion	 this appeal suc ceeds and is allowed with costs and the judgment of the High Court under appeal is set aside. S.B. Appeal allowed.

The respondent is a Public Limited Company incorporat ed on April 14	 1989 for carrying on business of manufac turing chemical products particularly of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose (CMC) and Cellulose Pulps. The respondent was also granted an industrial licence by the Central Government for the manufacture of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose. The respondent had installed a cellulose plant in which cellulose pulp	 the raw material for Carboxy Methyl Cellulose was manufactured. The plant had begun production from March 1961 while the production of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose was started from June 15	 1961. The respondent claimed relief under section 84 of Income Tax Act as it stood prior to its being deleted with effect from April 1	 1968 by Finance Act (2) 1967	 for the assessment year 1966 67	 the previous year of accounting being the financial year 1965 66. The Income Tax Officer took the view that since the respondent had started production of cellulose pulp from March	 18 1961	 it had begun to manufacture or produce finished articles or goods in the year ending March 31	 1961 and consequently the assessment year 1961 62 was the first year in which the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 Sub section (7) of the Income Tax Act under which the relief contemplated was to be available only for live assessment years. So the respondent was not entitled to relief in the assessment year 1966 67 which fell beyond the aforesaid period. The above view the Income Tax Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Even the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent having begun production or manufacture of finished product which was capable of being sold in the market in the year of accounting relevant to the assessment year 1961 62 the last year in which the respondent was entitled to get relief under section 84 of the Act was the assessment year 1965 66 and the claim for 889 the relief in the assessment year 1966 67 was not maintain able. The High Court on reference	 held that the mere fact that the respondent started production of Cellulose Pulp which was an intermediate product on March 18	 1961 did not mean that the company had begun to produce or manufacture "articles" in the assessment year 1961 62 because the word "articles" used in Sub section (7) of section 84 in the context	 could be only the end product of the industrial undertaking as a whole where there was no phased programme of installation and construction. Allowing the appeal of the Revenue with costs	 the Court	 HELD: The High Court on the facts and circumstances of the instant case committed an error in interfering with the conclusion of the Tribunal. It is settled law that a High Court while hearing a reference under the Act does not exercise any appellate or revisional or supervisory juris diction over the Tribunal and it acts purely in an advisory capacity. Further in the instant case the finding of the Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmities such as not being supported by any evidence or being perverse or patent ly unreasonable. The production of Cellulose Pulp during the month of March	 1961 was a finished product which was a marketable commodity. It is true that Cellulose Pulp also constitutes raw material for manufacture of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose and the circumstances that the industrial licence granted to the respondent was for the manufacture of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose which also included the manufacture of Cellulose Pulp which was intermediate product to be used in its turn as a raw material for the manufacture of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose. The relevent clause of the Memorandum of Association of the respondent company is obviously wide in its amplitude and as such comtemplates "manufacture of chemical products of any nature and kind whatsoever and particularly of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose	 Cellulose Pulp and other chemical products. " So the High Court obviously com mitted an error in holding that the manufacture of Cellulose Pulp during March 1961 was of no consequence and that the first year of production would be the assessment year 1962 63 when Carboxy Methyl Cellulose was actually manufactured. The provisions of section 84 of the Act could be coustrued liberally only	 when there is any genuine doubt about the interpretation. [892H 893G	 894B] In the instant case	 a plain reading of Sub section (7) of the section 84 of the Act makes it clear without any doubt that the period of assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking began to manufacture or produce "articles" was 1961 62. The question as to the assessment year in which the undertaking begins to manufac ture or 890 produce articles is essentially a question to be decided on the facts of each case and on the basis of evidence placed on record. [894C D]