COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs UNIVERSAL FERRO and ALLIED CHEMICALS LTD.

MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR, J. :

The assessment year relevant for our purpose is 1981-92. In computing the total income of the assessee-company the ITO did not include the work-in-progress as a part of the capital for computing relief under s. 80J. In appeal, however, before the CIT(A) the claim of the assessee was allowed. And as this claim had been upheld by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed a reference application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act stating therein that the following question of law arose out of the Tribunals and required a statement of the case to be drawn up, the question raised and order referred to us for determination :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in taking work-in-progress is as part of capital in computing relief under s. 80J ?"

As the Tribunal rejected the reference application, the Department has come before us under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961.

The question is directly answered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd., . It is true that a SLP is pending in the Supreme Court but until the Supreme Court holds to the company we are bound to answer the question in the light of the above decision. Hence, as the answer to the question is self explanatory, no purpose would be served by directing the Tribunal to raise the above question and refer it to us for determination.

Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.