SEN, J. - (1.) THE following two question of law have been referred by the Tribunal to this Court under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proceedings initiated by the ITO under S. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961, and the reassessment made thereon was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the reassessment was fit to be cancelled? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under S. 80J should allowed at the rate of 6 per cent of the capital employed for the whole year without any limitation or proportionate time basis?" Question No. 1 relates to the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1975-76, for which relevant periods of account are the years ending on 31st March, 1975, respectively, and question No. 2 relates to the asst. yr. 1976-77, for which the relevant period of account is the year ending on 31st March, 1976.
(2.) THE Tribunal has categorically found that when the ITO made the original assessments all the facts and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Challapalli Sugar Ltd., Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and India Cement Ltd. were before the ITO. This finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged as perverse. In the circumstances, question No. 1 must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question is concluded by the decision in the case of CIT vs. Oyster Packagers (P) Ltd. (1986) 53 CTR (Cal) 427 : (1985) 152 ITR 471 (Cal) :21 Taxman 115 (Cal). Following the principles laid down in that case, the second question must also be answered in the affirmative and is favour of the assessee.
(3.) IN view of the above, both the question are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.;