RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 13th Sept., 2004, passed in two cross -appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1992 -93. The assessee [sic -Revenue] has sought to raise following two questions as substantial question of law which arise for consideration in this appeal: 'I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs made by the AO on account of disallowance of provision for excise and job charges ? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80I of the IT Act on the income before allowing deduction under Section 80HH ?'
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel and perused the record placed before us which has been referred to by the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.;