B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) No one is present for the respondent. Heard learned standing counsel for the Revenue.
(2.) Learned counsel contends that, on the date the Income-tax Officer invoked his power under Section 154 of the Act and passed the order, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts was not there. In our opinion, the following two questions of law do arise from the order of the Tribunal as suggested by the Revenue : "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that allowability of investment allowance to cold storage is a disputable issue when the issue stands already settled following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chowgule and Co. (P) Ltd. [1981] 47 STC 124 which was followed by the Hon'ble High Courts in Delhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 97 (Delhi) and CIT v. Mittal Ice and Cold Storage [1986] 159 ITR 18 (MP) (sic) ? (2) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme. Court in Chowgule and Co. (P) Ltd. [1981] 47 STC 124 on the interpretation of definition of the "manufacturing or processing" amounted to a declaration of law as contemplated by article 141 of the Constitution of India. Whether, on these facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 154 did not apply because allowability of investment allowance to a cold storage plant was a disputable law point ?"
(3.) Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to state the aforesaid two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. No costs.;