Judgment 1. This is a reference Under Sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). It relates to deductions under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69. The question referred to us for our opinion is as follows : "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of this case, the Tribunal were correct in law in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 5,02,654 was deductible for computing surtax liability ?" 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of glass. In the assessment year in question, a sum of Rs. 5,02,654 was spent for repairs of furnaces at the assessees factory at Kandra and Konnagar. The assessee claimed it as deductible expenditure in the income-tax assessment on the footing that it was revenue expenditure. The claim of the assessee did not find favour with the Income-tax Officer. It was, however, accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The question relating to the claim of deduction was the subject-matter of reference in CIT V/s. Seraikella Glass Works (P.) Ltd. [ 1986] 157 ITR 584 (Pat) to which one of us (Uday Sinha J.) was a party, where it was held that the expenditure on repair of the furnaces was revenue expenditure and was thus a deductible expense. 4. In the case of surtax assessment, the assessee claimed deduction of the same sum of Rs. 5,02,654 on the footing that it was revenue expenditure and thus deductible from the income. The Income-tax Officer excluded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 because a sum of Rs. 2,52,654 only had been debited in the books of account. The assessee had done so because he had already deducted a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 earlier as expenditure for repair of old furnaces. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 . The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the assessee in full on the ground that the expenses incurred were revenue in nature. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Tribunal. Hence, the present reference before us. 5. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the assessee in full on the ground that the expenses incurred were revenue in nature. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Tribunal. Hence, the present reference before us. 5. The reference before us is almost concluded by a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT V/s. Seraikella Glass Works (P.) Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 584 (Pat). That was also a case which related to this very assessee for the same assessment year, i.e., 1968-69. Since this court has held that the expenditure for repair of the furnaces was revenue expenditure and was deductible as such, that opinion must prevail in the present case as well. The expenditure was obviously revenue in nature. That being so, it was a deductible expense. 6. Following the view taken by this court in the aforesaid case CIT V/s. Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd. [ 1986] 157 ITR 584 (Pat), we hereby hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 5,02,654 was deductible for computing surtax liability. The reference is answered Accordingly. 7. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of Sec.260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.