Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) Two questions have been referred by the Tribunal : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire amount of the provision for expenses was allowable in computing the profits and gains of the assessee's business ?
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant' Commissioner was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the development rebate admissible to the assessee and carry forward the same in accordance with law ?" 2. The first question relates to, the liability of the assessee to pay bonus. The finding of the Tribunal as stated in the statement of case is that the assessee-company had made provision amounting to Rs. 40,000 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70 and Rs. 80,000 for the assessment year 1968-69 in its accounts. It claimed the said amounts as deduction on account of its statutory liability to pay bonus. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that these were mere provisions. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the assessee.
(3.) The Income-tax Officer appealed to the Tribunal. The only point taken before the Tribunal was that the assessee had hot explained before the Income-tax Officer that the provisions in question were on account of bonus payable by the assessee. Since the assessee had not produced evidence to prove that the provisions in question related to bonus, it was submitted that the disallowance by the Income-tax Officer was correct. On behalf of the assessee, it was pointed out that the assessee had specifically claimed that the provisions for expenses related to bonus payable by the assessee during the years under reference, the details of which were filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave a direction that the claim of the assessee in this respect should be allowed only after examining the evidence produced in this regard. In the circumstances, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be upheld.;