JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this petition under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. It claims that the following two questions of law arise for the opinion of this Court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 55,271 confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of alleged job charges paid to Shri Sandeep Jain, son of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation of Rs. 51,328 holding that the machinery purchased on 31st March, 1988, from Ashoka Bros. Impex Ltd. for Rs. 1,65,984 was put to use on the same day at Ludhiana ?"
(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A perusal of the orders passed by the authorities shows that the respondent assessee had shown a payment of Rs. 55,271 to Sandeep Jain, his son. It has been found by the Tribunal that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of wood work machines. He had shown total sales at Rs. 45,64,416. His son Sandeep Jain is a qualified engineer. He had been working for the past three years. On the basis of this evidence, the assessee's claim for deduction of an amount of Rs. 55,271 has been sustained. It is a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of the evidence adduced during the proceedings. No question of law arises.
(3.) WITH regard to the second question, it has been claimed by the Revenue that the machine was purchased, installed and allegedly used on 31st March, 1988. On this basis, a depreciation of Rs. 51,328 has been wrongly allowed.;