OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) FOR the assessment years 1982 -83, 1983 -84 and 1984 -85, the assessee made Reference Applications Nos. 376, 377 and 378 of 1989, respectively, and the applications of the Revenue for the said assessment years are numbered as 379, 380 and 381 of 1989, respectively.
(2.) BOTH sets of applications were partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by a combined order. On the applications of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act), for the opinion of this court : R. A. Nos. 376 and 377 (All) of 1989 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not eligible to exemption under Section 10(26B) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the dismissal of the claims of the assessee for investment allowance, relief under Section 80J, and deduction of ex gratia payment even in respect of the taxable portion of the income of the assessee ?' R. A. No, 378 (All) of 1989 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is not eligible to exemption under Section 10(26B) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the levy of interest under Section 139(8) of the Income -tax Act, by holding that the charge of interest under this section was automatic ?' Before reproducing the questions referred by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue, we take up first, the questions referred to this court at the instance of the assessee. 3. As both the sets of applications were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal by a consolidated order, we too dispose of them by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
(3.) SO far as question No. 1 arising from R. A. Nos. 376, 377 and 378 relating to the consecutive assessment years 1982 -83, 1983 -84 and 1984 -85 is concerned, it will suffice to say that this question is covered by our judgment dated December 6, 1995, given in I. T. R. No. 86 of 1986 (CIT v. Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam : [1997]226ITR696(All) ), relating to the assessment year 1979 -80, referred to this court at the instance ofthe instant assessee. In that order, we found that the income having accrued to the assessee from executing the housing schemes undertaken for the promotion of the members of the Scheduled Castes only is exempt and the income relatable to the main objects Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the memorandum of association of the assessee and the income from the housing schemes, in so far as it related to the promotion of backward classes and other categories was not exempt.;