1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions:
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of payment made to Shri H.P Aggarwal does not fall under the purview of section 80W of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby deleting the disallowance?
2. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liabilities for payment of cess in respect of the land in section 27, Faridabad, as also the land in section 15A of Faridabad accrued in the year to the extent provided by the assessee?
(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liability was allowable as revenue expenditure although the assessee received enduring benefit by paying the development cess?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dealers' contribution to the Dealers' Development Fund and also the income earned in relation thereto cannot be held to be the assessee's income for tax purposes and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,58,718 and of Rs. 58,169, respectively?”
2. In our opinion, the aforesaid questions Nos. 1, 2(a) and 3, on the facts of this case, cannot be regarded as questions of law.
3. Regarding question No. 1, there is no finding of fact that the provisions of section 80W of the Act were applicable. In order that the said provision applies, it must be found as a fact that expenditure was incurred by the assessee in respect of the proceedings before the income-tax authority or Appellate Tribunal or in court. In the absence of such finding, the answer to question No. 1 is self-evident.
4. Regarding question No. 2(a), the Tribunal, on the facts of this case and keeping in view the correspondence which has been exchanged, has come to the finding that liability had accrued in the year in question and this is an inference of fact.
5. Regarding question No. 3, the Tribunal has found as a fact that the amount which was contributed was never utilised by the assessee and the said amount was subsequently transferred to a separate legal fund. The amount contributed by the dealers could, under no circumstances, be regarded as the income or money of the assessee. The answer to the said question is also, therefore, self-evident.
6. In our opinion, one question of law does arise in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat., [1992] 197 ITR 422, and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question to this court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liability for payment of cess was allowable as a revenue expenditure?”
7. There will be no order as to costs.