JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. Neither the assessee nor the Revenue was satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal and, therefore, both of them moved the Tribunal to refer the following questions to this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred on payment of listing fees as regards the assessee's shares had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rental income derived in respect of factory building No. 2 was chargeable under the head 'Income from house property' and that no depreciation was allowable in respect thereof under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative whether the Tribunal was correct in law in invoking the provisions of section 32(1) read with section 38(2) of the Income-tax Act, while holding that although the factory building was a business asset no depreciation was allowable on the same in view of the character of its user ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that on the basis of the mercantile system of accounting the entire increased liability of Rs. 7,85,812 was not of (a) revenue nature, or (b) capital nature includible in the cost of the machinery for the assessment year 1974-75 ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not granting the relief to the appellant in respect of its additional claim under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the claim of the appellant that surtax liability is an allowable deduction in computing the business income ? At the instance of the Revenue : (7) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of bonus and other allowances made by the assessee to its employees each drawing more than Rs. 7,500 as annual salary in excess of 20 per cent. At the instance of the Revenue : (7) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of bonus and other allowances made by the assessee to its employees each drawing more than Rs. 7,500 as annual salary in excess of 20 per cent. of such salary were not benefit, amenity or perquisite within the meaning of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (8) Whether while computing capital under section 80J debts and liabilities are not required to be deducted ? " 2. It is not necessary to state the facts relevant to the points involved in this reference since, as many as 7 out of 8 questions are covered by the decisions of this court or of the Supreme Court. Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 7 are covered by the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself in respect of the previous year. The said decision is in CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. 1993 (201) ITR 208 (Guj). Question No. 3 which is dependent upon the answer to question No. 2 is not required to be answered in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. 1993 (201) ITR 208 (Guj). Question No. 4 is also covered by the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. That was in Income-tax References Nos. 74, 74A and 74B of 1980 decided on October 14, 1992 (New India Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1993 (203) ITR 933 (Guj)). In that case, it is held that the increased liability would be of capital nature and includible in the cost of machinery for the purposes of depreciation. Following that decision, question No. 4 will have to be answered accordingly. Question No. 6 is covered by the decision of this court in S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1988 (172) ITR 176. Following that decision, the said question will have to be answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 8 is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 (152) ITR 308 . Following that decision, the said question will have to be answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 8 is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 (152) ITR 308 . Following that decision, question No. 8 will have to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. The only question which is required to be considered is question No. 5. The assessee exported certain goods and claimed weighted deduction for three items, viz., foreign tour expenses, subscription paid to engineering export promotion council and salaries paid to the staff. Though the Income-tax Officer rejected the same, it was granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In appeal, while the matter was pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee raised an additional claim for allowance for weighted deduction for three more items. The claim was for Rs. 1,08,551. It consisted of salary paid to some members of the staff, printing and stationery and freight and interest charges for the exported goods. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not permit the assessee to raise this additional point following the decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. 1978 (111) ITR 1 . The Tribunal also held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in refusing to allow the assessee to raise this additional ground as the consideration of that additional ground would have required further material to be collected. 4. What is contended by learned counsel for the assessee is that the Tribunal has not correctly interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurjargravures' case 1978 (111) ITR 1 . Moreover, the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT 1991 (187) ITR 688 has doubted and distinguished the said decision. Therefore, the assessee should have been permitted to raise this additional point by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, in not directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to permit the assessee to raise this additional point, has committed an arbitration of law. We find considerable substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the assessee should have been permitted to raise this additional point by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, in not directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to permit the assessee to raise this additional point, has committed an arbitration of law. We find considerable substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee. In the case of Jute Corporation 1991 (187) ITR 688 , the Supreme Court has held as under (at page 693) : "The above observations are squarely applicable in the interpretation of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminous with that of the Income-tax Officer, and if that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income-tax Officer. No exception could be taken to this view as the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power. Even otherwise, an appellate authority while hearing the appeal against the order of a subordinate authority, has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There appears to be no good reason and none was placed before us to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer." 5. After referring to its earlier decision in Gurjargravures' case 1978 (111) ITR 1 , the Supreme Court has further observed that the said decision does not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or the ground became available on account of change of circumstances or law. There may be several factors justifying the raising of such a new plea in appeal, and each case has to be considered on its own facts. There may be several factors justifying the raising of such a new plea in appeal, and each case has to be considered on its own facts. If the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is satisfied, he would be acting within his jurisdiction in considering the question so raised in all its aspects. of course, while permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in accordance with law and reason. He must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The satisfaction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rigid principles or any hard and fast rule can be laid down for this purpose. 6. Thus, over and above the cases where a claim is made but there is no material on record or where the material is on record but no formal claim is made, an assessee can, even when no claim is made and no material is on record, request the appellate authority to permit him to raise an additional point on the ground that the assessee could not raise that point earlier for justifiable reasons. In this case, 100 per cent. deduction under section 37 of the Act was granted in respect of exported goods. Moreover, weighted deduction was also granted under section 35B of the Act though it was in respect of three items, viz., foreign tour expenses, subscription paid to engineering export promotion council and salary paid to the staff. Thus, material in respect of the additional claim was already there on the record. What the assessee did before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was to claim an additional amount by way of weighted deduction under three heads, viz., salary paid to some members of the staff, printing and stationery and freight and interest charges paid in respect of those exports. Thus, this was a case where, though no formal claim was made earlier, the material in respect of it was on the record. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, ought to have permitted the assessee to raise this additional point and the Tribunal was also wrong in not setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that behalf and in not directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to permit the assessee to raise that additional point. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, ought to have permitted the assessee to raise this additional point and the Tribunal was also wrong in not setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that behalf and in not directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to permit the assessee to raise that additional point. Question No. 5 will, therefore, have to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 7. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows : Question No. 1 : We refuse to answer the same for the reasons stated by this court in CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. 1993 (201) ITR 208. Question No. 2 : It is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 3 : It is not required to be answered in view of the answer to question No. 2. Question No. 4 : It is answered in the negative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee to the extent indicated above. Question No. 5 : It is answered in the negative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 6 : It is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 7 : It is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 8 : It is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 8. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.