JUDGMENT :---By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion :— "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the ITO in not allowing the claim of the asessee for a deduction under section 35(1) of the I.T. Act.?" 2. The assessee is an Industrial Company engaged in manufacture of textile machinery etc. Assessment was for the year 1978-79. The assessee had claimed before the Income Tax Officer deduction under section 35(1), (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an expenditure of Rs. 32,634/- which expenditure was stated to have been incurred for scientific research. The Income Tax Officer did not allow claim of the assessee. This expenditure of Rs. 32,634/- was incurred by the assessee on the installation of test bed. According to the Income Tax Officer, test bed was required by the assessee for the purposes of carrying out its normal production activity. Thus, according to the Income Tax Officer, the expenditure on the installation of test bed was primarily for the purpose of incurring essential production requirement and scientific research if any, was only incidental. The Income Tax Officer therefore, held that this expenditure did not qualify for deduction. He further stated in his order of assessment that in case the Central Board of Direct Taxes had referred the question to the prescribed authority under section 35(3) of the Income Tax Act, for its decision the assessment could be refused if the decision was in favour of the assessee. The order of the Income Tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the action of the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal while doing so also took note to the difficulties which the department would have to incur in determining the loss to the revenue in the event before the competent authority deciding the matter in favour of the revenue. The Tribunal however, gave a positive direction in its order that in the event of the decision of the prescribed authority being in favour of the assessee, the Income Tax Officer shall proceed to rectify the assessment accordingly. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing at today's hearing. The Tribunal however, gave a positive direction in its order that in the event of the decision of the prescribed authority being in favour of the assessee, the Income Tax Officer shall proceed to rectify the assessment accordingly. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing at today's hearing. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the applicant is before this Court. Grievance of the assessee is that either the Income Tax Officer ought to have allowed claim of the assessee or he should have referred the matter to the Board. In other words, the procedure followed by the Income Tax Officer was not in accordance with law. We have carefully considered by the submission. An uncontroverted factual position brought to our notice by the learned Counsel of the assessee is that the reference was made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, to the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 8th November, 1979 and the Board in turn made a reference to the prescribed authority on 29th November, 1979. The prescribed authority after a detailed examination of the controversy answered the question referred by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by its order dated 11th March, 1985. The decision of the prescribed authority is final under the Act. 3. In view of the above, the controversy raised on behalf of the assessee in regard to the correctness of the procedure followed by the Income Tax Officer is purely academic. In any view of the matter, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction under section 35(1) (4) of the Act and the order of the Income Tax Officer refusing to allow the deduction appears to us to be correct. If the view taken by the prescribed authority in its order dated 11th March, 1985 is to be borne in mind, it follows that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction in respect of the said amount. 4. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative and in favour of revenue. Order accordingly. -----