- (1.) The respondent-assessee has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance.
(2.) The High Court, by the order under challenge, declined to call for a reference of the question set out below on the ground that they were questions of fact and covered by the decision of that Court in the case of C. I. T. v. Ram Krishna Banik 275 ITR 901. The questions read thus : "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in law in allowing 40% deduction from the incentive bonus granted by the employer when the incentive bonus is assessable under the head 'salaries' 2. Whether on the proper construction of section 16 of the Income-tax Act, further deduction @ 40% from the incentive bonus is allowable in addition to specific deduction allowable under that section -the decision in the case of Rama krishna Banik also holds that identical questions are questions of fact.
(3.) We are of the view that the questions are questions of law and that the High Court should have directed the Tribunal to refer the same to it for its consideration.;