AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arises from the judgment of this court dated August 9, 1991, on a reference made under Section 256 (1) of the Act. ( 2 ) THE question referred to this court by the Income-tax Tribunal was whether the assessee who had been carrying on hotel business was entitled to extra depreciation allowance and also extra shift depreciation allowances. This court answered the said question in the negative by saying that the assessee is entitled only to extra depreciation allowance following the earlier decision of this court in S. P. Jaiswal Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 603. There, a Division Bench of this court had held that extra shift allowance for triple shift working is not available to a hotel as the expression "extra shift" is relatable only to a factory or concern which may or may not work day-shift as well as night-shift. The concept of shift working of the machinery and plant in a hotel has no place in the scheme for granting extra shift allowance, because the hotel is carrying on its business for 24 hours. Therefore, a special provision for granting extra depreciation allowance for hotel instead of extra shift depreciation allowance has been provided for under item No. III (iii) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, where the hotel is one approved by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 33 of the Act. ( 3 ) IN the present application under Section 261 of the Act the said judgment has been assailed as based on reasoning prima facie fallacious and self-contradictory. ( 4 ) IN this application, the following substantial questions of law are contended to have arisen which require to be finally settled by the Supreme Court ; (1) Whether item No. III (iii) of Part I of Appendix I is a special provision which is applicable to an approved hotel and thereby an approved hotel is denied the benefit of extra shift depreciation allowance under item No. III (iv) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. (2) Whether the concept of shift working of the machinery and plant is applicable only to a factory and not to a hotel. (2) Whether the concept of shift working of the machinery and plant is applicable only to a factory and not to a hotel. (3) Whether an approved hotel which is entitled to extra depreciation allowance under item No. III (iii) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is also entitled to extra shift allowance provided it satisfies the conditions set out therein and under item No. III (iv) of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. ( 5 ) WE have heard the submissions of Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. To our mind, the view we have taken is far from being fallacious and is conformable with the manifest intention of the notes below item No. III (iii) of Part I of Appendix I to the said Rules. That the extra shift depreciation allowance is referable to a factory or concern is clear from the notes under the heading "extra shift depreciation allowance" in item No. III (iv) ibid. The said notes specifically refer to a factory or concern which may or may not work 24 hours on all days. A hotel does not fall in the class of concerns that work on seasonal basis or work single shift or double shift or triple shift according to contingencies. ( 6 ) MOREOVER, hotels have been excluded from extra shift depreciation allowance by the prior entry in item No. III (iii) ibid. That item is a special provision for extra depreciation for hotel, in view of the fact that the hotel works for 24 hours without any break. ( 7 ) WE do not see any fallacy in the view as aforesaid. Learned counsel's reading that this interpretation would entitle an unapproved hotel to triple shift allowance is totally misconceived. As a corollary to the ratio decidendi, in our answer, an unapproved hotel will be entitled neither to extra shift depreciation allowance nor to extra depreciation allowance especially provided for an approved hotel. Thus, the misapprehension of learned counsel that the derision creates an anomaly is unfounded. ( 8 ) WE find that the position of law as declared by us is so self-evident and manifest that it cannot be said that our order leaves any question which is open to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the misapprehension of learned counsel that the derision creates an anomaly is unfounded. ( 8 ) WE find that the position of law as declared by us is so self-evident and manifest that it cannot be said that our order leaves any question which is open to be resolved by the Supreme Court. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, decline to certify the questions to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. The prayer for certificate under Section 261 of the Act prayed for is dismissed.