JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - These cases arise out of two applications u/s 66 (I) of the Indian Income Tax Act at the instance of the assessee which were granted by the Appellate Tribunal and the following two questions were referred to us for answer:- 1. Whether, on the facts of the case and on the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, the Tribunal rightly held that the loss of Rs. 55, 380/- arising from the sale of sugar factory plant was capital-loss and could not be allowed as a deduction u/s 10(2) (vii) in computing the income from other businesses? 2. Whether the asses-see is entitled to claim loss on the sale of the sugar factory plant made during the year of account or even on sales which took piece prior to year of account ? 2. The assessee. The Ganga Glass Works, is a limited company and it carries on the business of manufacturing glass in Balawali, District Bijnor. In the year 1935-36 the assessee started the manufacture of sugar. Both these factories were situate in Balawali' District Bijnor. The sugar manufacture was carried on only for two years and then it was stopped. A part of the machinery was sold in 1939 and the rest of it was sold in the relevant account year-October, 1942 to September 30,1943. This sale resulted in a loss of Rs.-55.380/-- The assessee claimed that it was entitled to a deduction of that loss. The case of the assessee was that both these businesses, i.e. manufacture of glass and manufacture of sugar, were one business and therefore, though the manufacture of sugar may have been stopped, the business must be deemed to have been carried on and u/s 19(2) (vii) the assesses was entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 55, 380/- mentioned above. The relevant portion of Section 10 is as follows;- Business-10 (l)The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. 55, 380/- mentioned above. The relevant portion of Section 10 is as follows;- Business-10 (l)The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Suoh profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances; namely : (vii) in respect of any machinery or plant which has been sold or discarded, the amount by which the written down value of the machinery or plant exceeds the amount for which the machinery or plant is actually sold or its scrap value : Provided that such amount is actually written off in the books of the assessee : Provided further that where the amount for which any such machinery or plant is sold exceeds the written down value the excess shall be deemed to be profits of the previous year in which the sale took place. 3. The question, therefore, became of importance whether the sugar manufacturing business was separate from the glass manufacturing business because u/s 10 (2) the deductions allowable are the deductions for profits and gains of the same business. It is not denied by learned counsel for the assessee that if there were two separate business, the sugar manufacturing business having been closed in 1938, the plant or machinery that remained in the hands of the assessee was its capital and any loss incurred by it by sale of that plant or machinery would be a capital loss and not a revenue loss of the business that it was carrying on in the relevant accounting period 1942-43. 4. It was settled in Scales v. Thompson (George) & Co , Ltd. 1927 13 Tax cases 83 that a company can carry on more business than one. The point is dealt within Simon's Income Tax, Vol. II, at page 288, paragraph 333, where the author has quoted the case mentioned above and has said that a company can carry on two or more separate trades. The point is dealt within Simon's Income Tax, Vol. II, at page 288, paragraph 333, where the author has quoted the case mentioned above and has said that a company can carry on two or more separate trades. The question whether the assessee is carrying on one business or more than one business is essentially a question of fact As we have said in Dalsukhrai Jaidayal, Banaras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. & G.P. 1950 T. Tax R. 546 the law is well settled that such a question is a question of fact and is not a question of law. In Simon's Income Tax, Vol. II, paragraph 135, page 104, the law is summarized as follows : It is, of course, a question of fact whether in the actual case there has been a discontinuance or one or two or more businesses or merely the closing down of a department or a business. This question across in Howden Boiler and Armaments Co. Ltd. v. Stewart 1925 9 Tax cases 205 where a firm of boiler makers secured a large contract for making of armaments and in 1951 the business was transferred to a company with the object which included boiler making and armament making. The making of armaments was carried on in new premises erected for the purpose adjacent to, but having no inter communication with the original works. Each work had its own separate plant, workmen, technical and clerical staff, set of books of trading accounts, but both were under the same general direction and management. There was one profit and loss account and balance sheet and bank interest and management expenses were charged without apportionment.... The General Commissioners decided that the Company had carried on one business with two departments and the Court held that there Was evidence to support the finding. On the other hand, in Scales (Inspector of Taxes) v. Thompson (George) & Co. Ltd., 1927 13 Tax cases 83 a company which carried on the business of ship owner and the business of under writing, the Special Commissioners found as a fact that the Company carried ,on two separate trades and the Court upheld their decision. 5. It would be clear from the question given above that the only point of law that this Court can consider is whether there was evidence to support the finding. 5. It would be clear from the question given above that the only point of law that this Court can consider is whether there was evidence to support the finding. In Dalsukhrai Jaidayal v. Commissioner of Income tax, U.P & C.P. there was no evidence to support the finding arrived at by the Tribunal, and though we held that it was essentially a question of fact, relying on certain affidavits that were filed, we summarized the facts, instead of passing an order for further statement u/s 66 (4) of the Income Tax Act as the Tribunal had not formulated the facts on which the question had to be answered. 6. We have looked at the order of the Appellate Tribunal in this case,. the relevant portion of which is as follows:- 1. One business was manufacture of sugar and the other was manufacture of glass. 2. For these two businesses there were two separate sets of books of account. 3. For these two businesses there were two separate profit and loss accounts. 4. There was no inter dependence or inter connection between the two businesses so that they could be considered to be one business. 7. It is difficult to say in the circumstances that there was no evidence before the Tribunal which would entitle it to come to the findings at which it arrived. 8. On the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, the answer to the first question must be in the negative and the sum of Rs. 55,380/- can not be allowed as a deduction u/s 10 (2) (vii) in computing the income from the glass business. 9. We do not see how the second question arises. There is no fact mentioned in the 'statement of the Case' on which the second question has been framed, nor is there anything in the order of the Appellate Tribunal which can give rise to this question. In our view the second question, therefore, does not arise and does not "call for an answer. 10. The Department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 300/-.