SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. ( 1 ) TWO questions have been referred by the Tribunal : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire amount of the provision for expenses was allowable in computing the profits and gains of the assessee's business ? ( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant' Commissioner was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the development rebate admissible to the assessee and carry forward the same in accordance with law ?"2. The first question relates to, the liability of the assessee to pay bonus. The finding of the Tribunal as stated in the statement of case is that the assessee-company had made provision amounting to Rs. 40,000 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70 and Rs. 80,000 for the assessment year 1968-69 in its accounts. It claimed the said amounts as deduction on account of its statutory liability to pay bonus. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that these were mere provisions. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the assessee. ( 3 ) THE Income-tax Officer appealed to the Tribunal. The only point taken before the Tribunal was that the assessee had hot explained before the Income-tax Officer that the provisions in question were on account of bonus payable by the assessee. Since the assessee had not produced evidence to prove that the provisions in question related to bonus, it was submitted that the disallowance by the Income-tax Officer was correct. On behalf of the assessee, it was pointed out that the assessee had specifically claimed that the provisions for expenses related to bonus payable by the assessee during the years under reference, the details of which were filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave a direction that the claim of the assessee in this respect should be allowed only after examining the evidence produced in this regard. In the circumstances, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be upheld. It was submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave a direction that the claim of the assessee in this respect should be allowed only after examining the evidence produced in this regard. In the circumstances, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be upheld. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal held that since the assessee had furnished details to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the provisions specifically related to bonus payable by the company during the years under reference and since before the Tribunal also details had been furnished to show that the provisions made for all the years were on account of bonus payable and that bonus was actually paid in each of the subsequent years, the Tribunal felt satisfied that the assessee-company had correctly provided for bonus payable during the three years under reference to its employees. Since the liability to pay bonus was statutory, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had correctly directed allowance of the provision in this regard for the three years. The appeals preferred by the Income-tax Officer were dismissed. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the Revenue it has been contended that the assessee's claim should be examined by the Income-tax Officer once again and that was the direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That direction, however, has not been sustained by the Tribunal. It has merely directed allowance of the claim. ( 6 ) IT appears that the Tribunal examined the correctness of the claims. Details were produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded that it felt satisfied that the assessee-company had correctly provided for bonus payable during the three years under reference to its employees. In view of this finding, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal should have given any further direction in the matter. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 8 ) THE second question relates to carry forward of development rebate. This question is concluded by a judgment of this court in the case of West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 501. This judgment was followed in the case of CIT v. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. This question also is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. This question is concluded by a judgment of this court in the case of West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 501. This judgment was followed in the case of CIT v. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. This question also is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ( 9 ) BOTH the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.