Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) Pursuant to the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions were referred by the Tribunal : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a plain and bare reading of item No. 12 of the Eleventh Schedule shows that electric bulbs and fittings are covered by the said item and that there cannot conceivably be two opinions in the matter ?
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that machinery used for manufacture of electric bulbs and fittings is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act ?
(3.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that grant of investment allowance in the original assessment in respect of machinery used for manufacture of electric bulbs and fittings was a mistake apparent from the records which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act ?" 2. The facts, briefly stated and as appear from the statement of case, are that the original assessment in this case for the assessment year 1978-79 was made on June 26, 1981. In the original assessment, investment allowance as claimed by the assessee was allowed. Subsequently, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) proposed rectification of the original assessment on the grounds, inter alia, that the investment allowance was wrongly granted in respect of machinery installed at Loni factory, Kalwa Factory, Industrial Complex, Instruments Factory at Pimpri, Calcutta factory and Luminaire factory at Calcutta. A notice was issued under Section 154 informing the assessee that excessive relief was allowed to it in the original assessment. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), after hearing the authorised representative of the assessee, held that, in the assessment order there was a mistake apparent from the record. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) withdrew the investment allowance in respect of various plant and machinery at factories at (i) Loni, (ii) Kalwa Factory Industrial Complex, (iii) Industrial Factory at Pimpri, (iv) Instrument Factory Division, (v) Calcutta factory and (vi) Luminaire factory. 3. Against the said order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) under Section 154, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who was of the view that the machinery used for manufacturing bulbs and electric fittings is not entitled to investment allowance. He, however, upheld the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that the issue relating to investment allowance on machinery for manufacture of bulbs and electric fittings is a debatable one and that any amendment in the original order is merely due to a change of opinion and, therefore, beyond the ambit of Section 154. He further held that the provisions of Section 154 could not have been invoked for rectifying the assessment order on the point. Both the parties, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), came up in appeal before the Tribunal.;