AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J.

(1) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court : question referred at the instance of the Revenue :

"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that extra shift allowance was allowable on generators and other electrical machinery used for the purpose of the assessees business "

(2) QUESTION referred at the instance of the assessee :

"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that part of the cost of installation of generators being ancillary equipment was not entitled to development rebate on the ground that orders for such equipment were placed after December 1, 1973. "

(3) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the Income-tax Officer did not allow the assessees claim for extra shift allowance in respect of generators and other electrical machinery on the ground that these plant and machinery fell under item III (iv) (1) of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which reads as under :

" (4) Electrical machinery--Switchgear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant and wiring and fittings of electric light and fan installations (NESA). "

(4) THE Income-tax Officer felt that generators were stationary plant and, therefore, no extra shift allowance was admissible thereon. This action of the Income-tax Officer was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessees claim for extra shift allowance holding that extra shift allowance was barred only in respect of stationary plant and not in respect of plant which were rotary machines and as such not stationary.

(5) THE question, therefore, is whether stationary plants would include generators and other electrical machinery. We have already extracted the relevant rule which provides that no extra shift allowance would be admissible on electrical machinery--switchgear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant. We are only concerned with the precise meaning of "other stationary plant" as appearing under the heading "electrical Machinery". In our view, the items mentioned under "electrical Machinery" are switchgear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant. According to the rules of construction, where two or more words which are susceptible, of analogous meaning are coupled together noscitur a sociis, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, the meaning of the more general being restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general. One application of the general rule is the ejusdem generis rule. This rule of construction meaning "of the same kind" applies where there is a particular description of property, sufficient to identify what was intended, followed by some general or "omnibus" description. This latter will be confined to objects of the same class or kind as the former, it being assumed that the general words were intended only to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned and were not intended to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. In Lyndon v. Standbridge [1857] 2 H. and N. 45 at page 51, it was held that

"it is a general rule of construction that, where a particular class is spoken of, and general words follow, the class first mentioned is to be taken as the most comprehensive, and the general words treated as referring to matters ejusdem generis with such class. "

(6) IN Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. Hamilton, Fraser and Co. [1887] 12 App. Cas. 484 at page 490, Lord Halsbury L. C. said

"two rules of construction are now firmly established as part of our law. One is that words, however general, may be limited in respect to the subject-matter in relation to which they are used. The other is that general words may be restricted to the same genus as the specific words that precede them".

(7) THIS rule has been applied not only for interpretation of deeds and documents but also in the construction of words in statutes.

(8) IN our view, therefore, the words "other stationary plant" must be construed ejusdem generis with switchgears and transformers. These items of machinery have no rotating parts and are stationary in nature. "stationary" means which is fixed in a station, course or mode ; which is immobile or unchanging in condition. But the generator, although it may be fixed to the ground, its function is to change mechanical energy into electrical energy. It is not stationary plant as understood in the context of switchgears and transformers. Therefore, the prohibition on account of extra shift allowance is applicable to all such items of electrical machinery which are of stationary nature. Generators, motors and centrifugal pumps are rotary machines which are not covered by the entry and are, therefore, entitled to extra shift allowance.

(9) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we answer the first question referred at the instance of the Revenue in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

(10) THE second question which has been referred to this court at the instance of the assessee relates to the claim of development rebate on ancillary equipment necessary for installation of generators. It is common ground that this ancillary equipment was not ordered before December 1, 1973. Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, clearly provided that development rebate would not be admissible in the case of machinery or plant which is installed by the taxpayer, after May 31, 1974, unless such machinery or plant was purchased by him before December 1, 1973, or the taxpayer had entered into a contract for the purchase of such machinery or plant with the manufacturer or owner or a dealer in such machinery or plant before that date. In view of the admitted position that the ancillary equipment was neither purchased nor ordered before December 1, 1973, the assessee is not entitled to any development rebate on these ancillary items. In view of this, the second question referred at the instance of the assessee is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.