SUGLA, J. - (1.)THE only question of law referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, is :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the period of lease and the provisions as to the renewal thereof, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not acquire any capital asset or advantage or benefit of an enduring nature by incurring an expenditure on lease in respect of which deductions were claimed by the assessee, and whether the Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the assessee acquired interest under the lease in the premises and this leasehold interest of the assessee therein was an asset of a capital nature and/or benefit and/or advantage of an enduring nature, not liable for deduction ?'

(2.)THE assessee, a banking company, had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 39,590 on obtaining lease premises and claimed deduction. Mr. Dhanuka learned counsel for the Department, fairly stated that this court has in the case CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. : [1982]137ITR652(Bom) , taken the view that types of expenditure incurred in connection with obtaining property on lease and in connection with the execution of lease agreement are allowable as deductions. He, however, contended that in the present case the details of expenditure are not available and what is mentioned in the statement of case is that the sum of Rs. 39,590 has been spent on obtaining lease of the premises. Such an expenditure, according to him, is not covered by the decision and requires consideration. Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the assessee is a nationalised bank having branches all over India and abroad. The expenditure of the nature involved herein is being incurred by the assessee from year to year. The Income -tax Appellate Tribunal has followed its earlier decision in ITA No. 2758 (Bom) /1970 for the assessment year 1969 -70, in the case of the assessee -bank itself, while allowing the expenditure in dispute as deduction. It is stated that this court's decision in the case of CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. : [1982]137ITR652(Bom) , is squarely applicable in this case.
On hearing the parties and after going through the material on record, it is the seen that the Income -tax Officer has described the expenditure as lease expenses. In the premises, we are satisfied that this court's decision in Cinceita P. Ltd.'s case : [1982]137ITR652(Bom) , covers the issue and the question is answer thus : The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not acquire any capital asset or advantage or benefit of an enduring nature by incurring an expenditure on lease in respect of which deduction was claimed. The question is answer in favour of the assessee.

(3.)NO order as to costs.