JUDGMENT Shivaraj Patil, J.—This reference is under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The question that is referred to us is as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the central excise duty refund received by the assessee during the relevant previous year was taxable in the hands of the assessee ?" 2. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee received a central excise duty refund of Rs. 1,96,958 on September 18, 1978. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner brought this amount to tax and, by his order dated March 5, 1982, he stated that this amount of refund was not paid to the customers even as, on that day up to March 5, 1982, there was no agreement to make such refund and this amount was not shown in the books or the profit and loss account as well. The assessee contended that this amount of excise duty refund not being profit could not be included for the purpose of tax under section 41(1) of the Act. The other contention was that the assessee had claimed only a refunded of Rs. 11,474 and that at the most only that amount could be included for the computation of tax. Both the contentions were rejected and the said order dated March 5, 1982, was passed. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referring to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Taj Gas Service, (1980) 122 ITR 1034 All . Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-I Vs. Rashmi Trading, (1976) 103 ITR 312 Guj and Motilal Ambaidas [1977] 108 ITR 136 agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal by his order dated November 16, 1983. The assessee not being satisfied with this order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took up the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions urged by the assessee as well by the respondents held that there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Added to this, the Tribunal, relying on the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-I Vs. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions urged by the assessee as well by the respondents held that there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Added to this, the Tribunal, relying on the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-I Vs. Kabbur Brothers, (1981) 128 ITR 43 KAR held that central excise duty refund can be placed on the same footing for the purpose of tax as in the case of refund of sales tax. Thus, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thereafter, the assessee made an application for making this reference. 3. Sri Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterated the same contentions and Sri H. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that, in view, of the decisions referred to above and particularly in view of the decisions of thus court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-I Vs. Kabbur Brothers, (1981) 128 ITR 43 KAR the question referred is to be answered in favour of the Revenue. 4. After careful consideration, we find sufficient force in the submission made by learned counsel for the Revenue and, in view of the clear legal position stated in Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-I Vs. Kabbur Brothers, (1981) 128 ITR 43 KAR and also in Motilal Ambaidas v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 136 , we hold that the question is to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. 5. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.