A. Raghuvir, C.J.: - The facts in the instant case are slightly involved. The reference aries under the Income Tax Act, 1951. The-assessee in the case is M/S. India Carbon Ltd., Noonmati, Gauhati, The following two questions are referred to this Court mnder clause (1) of S. 256 of the Act. (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of section 40, (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by section 9 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, the Tribunal was justified in holding that two interpretations are not possible in respect of the amended provisions of Section and that no debatable question of law was involved in the interpretation of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the ame ded provisions of section 40 (c) of the Income-tax Act the Tribunal was justified in rectifying the original order relating to the managing director's remuneration under Sec. 254(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 relating to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74." 2. The assessee clainud remuneration of Managing Director in Rs. 2,07,783/- for the assessment year 1970-71. The Income Tax Officer held the amount was excessive and allowed Rs. 54,000/--. The balance of Rs. 1,53,783/-was disallowed. For the assessment year 1972-73, the Income Tax Officer allowed Rs. 54,000/- disallowed 1,65,330/-, for the year 1973-74 allowed Rs 54,000/ disallowed Rs. 1,90,081/-. On appeal the order of the Income Tax Officer was confirmed. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order in appeal and held : "It is conceded by both parties that the facts and circumstances are the same in the assessment years in question as were in the assessment years whea the Tribunal disposed of the appeals. Under such circumstances we hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the managing director's remuneration in full as claimed by the assessee". 3. Later an application under Section 254 of the Act was filed for amendment of the order in that it was stated section 40 (c) was amended vide Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 with effect from 1.4.72. 3. Later an application under Section 254 of the Act was filed for amendment of the order in that it was stated section 40 (c) was amended vide Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 with effect from 1.4.72. The Appellate Tribunal noted the amendment and held : "We, therefore, hold that the order of the Tribunal allowing the full remuneration claimed by the assessee is a mistake apparent from the record and it can be rectified" and "Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that the managing director's remuneration was reasonable and not excessive. He was, therefore, right in allowing the managing director's remuneration in full for the assessment year 1970-71 as claiuedby the assessee. However, in view of the amendment in section 40(c) of the said Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 which is effective from 1.4.72, limiting the maximum allowance of remuneration to Rs. 72,000/-we hold that the assessee is entitled to a maximum allowance of Rs. 72,000/- in each of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 instead of Rs. 54,000/-as allowed by the Income Tax Officer. We, therefore, direct that the Income Tax Officer will allow the managing direction remuneration at Rs. 72,000/- in each of the assessment 1972-73 and 1973-74 and the balance allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored to the assessments for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74." 4. The learned counsel for the assessee in this case argued that there is possibility of section 40 (c) being interpreted in the manner in which the assessee seeks to interpret. It is argued section 40(c) would apply only if the revenue authorities hold that what was paid by the assessee towards the remuneration of the Managing Director is excessive and unreasonable. If such a finding is not recorded then the application of section 40(c) is not called for. The argument is that such a finding is jurisdictional question. Therefore the Appellate Tribunal did not error for that matter the error was of per incuriam. This interpretation of section 40(c) proffered to answer the two questions and two cases are cited 82 I.T.R. 50 T. S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay vs. Volkart Brothers and others) and (1952) 21 ITR 333 (Bom) (Sidhmtnapp Andannappa Manvi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay). 5. This interpretation of section 40(c) proffered to answer the two questions and two cases are cited 82 I.T.R. 50 T. S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay vs. Volkart Brothers and others) and (1952) 21 ITR 333 (Bom) (Sidhmtnapp Andannappa Manvi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay). 5. We are unable to hold there is possibility of such inter pretation as suggested by the assessee. In our understanding section 40(c) is not capable of any interpretation except in the manner answered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we answer both the questions in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No costs.