AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84, the following question of law has been referred to this court :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,044 being the legal expenses in connection with writ matters against new imposts of Central excise ?" ( 2 ) SHORTLY, the facts are that the assessee claimed deduction of legal expenses of Rs. 62,130 which included a sum of Rs. 18,000 paid to Messrs. Sawdev and Co. for sales tax and income-tax purposes and also a sum of Rs. 34,044 stated to have been spent for the purpose of pursuing certain writs against new imposts of Central excise. The Assessing Officer allowed 50 per cent. deduction in respect of legal expenses of Rs. 18,000. As regards Rs. 34,044 spent for writ matters in the High Courts, the Assessing Officer observed that the impost of Central excise was equally applicable to all the assessees similarly placed and was not in any way violative of the fundamental rights. ( 3 ) THE Assessing Officer, therefore, viewed that the legal expenses in that regard could not be said to be included in the assessee's business and, therefore, disallowed Rs. 34,044 on the item. ( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid disallowance of Rs. 34,044, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the sum of Rs. 34,044 and thus upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the point. ( 5 ) AGAINST the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, without assigning any reason, deleted the disallowance. ( 6 ) AT the hearing before us, it has been contended by Mr. Chakraborty, appearing for the Revenue, that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason and as such it is not possible to sustain the order of the Tribunal and it should be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. ( 7 ) IT appears that, before the Tribunal, the learned advocate for the assessee urged that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in upholding the addition. ( 7 ) IT appears that, before the Tribunal, the learned advocate for the assessee urged that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in upholding the addition. The Tribunal has accepted the said contention and disposed of the entire matter by two sentences which are as follows: "we entirely agree. We delete the addition. " ( 8 ) IN our view, the Tribunal ought to have given reasons for coming to its conclusion. The manner in which the Tribunal disposed of the matter is not proper. At least, the person aggrieved must know the reason why the Tribunal has come to a particular conclusion so that it may enable the aggrieved party to move the higher forum, if he is so advised. ( 9 ) THE only question is whether, on the facts incorporated in the statement of case, the reference can be decided or not. ( 10 ) IT appears that the legal expenses were incurred by the assessee in challenging the additional levy imposed by the Excise Act by the writ petition. According to the Income-tax Officer, the said legal expenses were not incidental to the assessee's business. It has not been disputed that such amount has been incurred by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the action of the Income-tax Officer saying that this is merely an additional charge on the existing rate which does not in any way hamper the normal functioning of the company. "it is more in the form of a protest". In our view, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not quite appreciate the facts of this case. ( 11 ) OUR attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. [1990] 186 ITR 541. There, the legal expenses were incurred by the assessee in connection with the writ petition filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging the Sugar Control Order and asking the High Court to give liberty to the assessee to collect the excess price of sugar. The expenditure in question was incurred for pursuing the aforementioned writ petition. The Income-tax Officer held that the expenditure in question could not be related to the earning of the income. The expenditure in question was incurred for pursuing the aforementioned writ petition. The Income-tax Officer held that the expenditure in question could not be related to the earning of the income. There, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the above order of the Income-tax Officer observing that whatever might be the nature of earning, it was clear that the writ petition was filed in the interest of the business in getting a better sale price for the sugar and as such the expenditure was allowable as a proper business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by holding that it was only in the interest of the business that the assessee has incurred the expenditure and, in this regard, the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 has been followed. This court observed as follows (at page 548) :"in our view, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 will apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Business expediency may not require that all expenses be incurred for earning immediate profits. Such expediency may also require that expenses be incurred to save business from coercive process and unlawful expropriation so that business may remain on sound footing and may earn greater profits in future. Where an assessee takes any steps for reducing its liability to tax which results in more funds being left for the purpose of carrying on the business or where the assessee takes steps for increasing the sale price for generating more funds for the purpose of carrying on business, there is always a possibility of higher profits. Accordingly, in determining whether an expenditure was deductible, the essential test which has to be applied was whether the expenses were incurred for the preservation and protection of the assessee's business from any such process or proceedings which might have resulted in the reduction of its income and profits. In our view, legal expenses claimed by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure. Even otherwise, the expenditure was incidental to the business and was necessitated or justified by commercial expediency. Accordingly, the expenditure is deductible. In our view, legal expenses claimed by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure. Even otherwise, the expenditure was incidental to the business and was necessitated or justified by commercial expediency. Accordingly, the expenditure is deductible. " ( 12 ) IN this case, as we have indicated, the assessee has challenged the additional levy of excise duty which would enhance the price of the commodity in question and, accordingly, the assessee has to face the competition in the market with a high cost product. It is immaterial whether such additional levy was imposed on all manufacturers of similar type of product as produced by the assessee. It cannot be said that expenditure in challenging such levy is not made on grounds of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business. In our view, the principle discussed in the aforesaid judgment of this court will equally apply to the facts of this case. The expenditure was incidental to the business and was necessitated or justified by commercial expediency. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.