- (1.) THIS Income Tax Reference has been made for our opinion on the following questions of law : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the machineries on which the extra shift allowance is claimed are not covered by stationery plant as contemplated in clause (iii) -(iv) (I) of Appendix -I of rule 5 of Income Tax Rules, 1962?
(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the machineries coming in contact with molasses, cane juice, etc., were considered as coming in contact with corrosive chemicals?' 2. Heard Shri Majahan, learned counsel for the revenue and Shri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent -Mill. There is no dispute at the Bar that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd v. CIT , and in terms of the aforesaid judgment, we request, with the understanding of the parties, the learned Tribunal to take further evidence giving both the parties -assessee as well as the revenue, an opportunity of producing the additional evidence, and based thereon, to decide whether the machinery for which the assessee claims depreciation at the higher rate is entitled to it. It shall then draw up a supplemental statement of case and the matter shall be reheard by the High Court having regard to what is found by the Tribunal and to this judgment.
(3.) IN view of this, we request the learned Tribunal to decide the matter and send the supplemental statement of the case.;