D.N.Bariiah, J.— By this application under section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), the Commissioner of Income Tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong prayed for a direction to refer the question mentioned in paragraph 6 of the application for opinion of this Court. 2. Respondent is a public limited company with its registered office at Tinsukia. The company filed income tax return in the status of a company. In its return the assessee claimed deduction for investment under section 32 AB of the Act at the rate of 20% of the total profit which included income of agricultural produces also. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and excluded that portion of the income which the assessee earned from agricultural produce. The Assessing Officer passed order of assessment on 27.3.91. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after conside'ring the conflicting" decisions of various Courts held that the assessee was entitled to include the agricultural income of profit and loss account for calculation of deduction at the rate of 20% of the total profit as allowable under section 32AB of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), therefore, by his order dated 30.7.91 allowed the said appeal in favour of the assessee. The Revenue filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Branch, Guwahati (ITA No.870 (Gau) of 1991) for the assessment year 1988-89. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati by order dated 19.4.93 held that the agricultural income from sale of eucalyptus wood was business income and although exempt from tax was to be considered as a part of business profit and loss account for computing the deduction allowable under section 32AB of the Act. The Revenue, thereafter, filed an application under section 256 (1) of the Act before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati with a prayer to draw up a statement of the case and refer the same to this Court on the questions mentioned in paragraph 4 of this application. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati, however, declined to make the reference to this Court and reject the application filed by the petitioner. Hence the present petition. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati, however, declined to make the reference to this Court and reject the application filed by the petitioner. Hence the present petition. 3. The petitioner has prayed before this Court for a direction to refer the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has not erred in law in directing the assessing officer to allow the benefit of section 32AB to the assessee after holding that the income is agricultural income which is exempt from income tax under section 10(1) of the LT. Act, 1961." The Tribunal after considering the decisions of various Court held that the assessee carried on basic operation and the income earned from the sale of eucalyptus trees was agricultural income and was exempt from income tax. The Tribunal further held that the assessee earned income out of the agricultural operations carried on the land and it held that if a person acquired interest in land on which basic operations were carried on by someone else and the subsequent operations were carried on by another person having interest in the land, then the sale proceeds would not be agricultural income. Having drawn a conclusion that the assessee had leasehold interest in the land on which eucalyptus trees were planted by the lessors and the assessee carried on further agricultural operations on the land by incurring various expenditures of basic and subsequent agricultural operations, the income earned out of such sale proceeds was clearly agricultural income and exempt from income tax under section 10 (1) of the Act and the CIT (A) was justified in treating the income out of sale proceeds of eucalyptus trees as agricultural income. The Tribunal further held that whatever income was earned by the assessee was eligible for deduction as they all constituted under the category of eligible business. The reason was that the definition eligible business was not restrictive one but was wider in its scope. Moreover, inter-head and intra-head adjustments were the cardinal principles of computation of income. Further in the case of the assessee the accounts had been prepared in accordance with Part-II and Part-III of the Sixth Schedule to the Companies Act as was the requirement under section 32AB (3) of the Act. Moreover, inter-head and intra-head adjustments were the cardinal principles of computation of income. Further in the case of the assessee the accounts had been prepared in accordance with Part-II and Part-III of the Sixth Schedule to the Companies Act as was the requirement under section 32AB (3) of the Act. From the above, the Tribunal held that it was clear that the activities of the assessee in earning business income and agricultural income had to be construed as forming part of the same business activity as there was one account for all the funds which were interwined and interlaced with each other and the business d was conducted under a common management. In view of that the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 32AB of the Act and the CIT (A) was justified in allowing the same and accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the judgment and order passed by the CIT (Appeals). 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Mr.DK Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have referred the question to this Court for opinion. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to refer the question inasmuch as there was no referable question of law arising out of the order. 5. In Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, reported in 32 ITR 466, the Supreme Court observed thus : " A critical examination of the definition of 'agricultural income' as given in section 2 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the relevant provisions of the several Agricultural Income-tax Acts of the various States also lends support to this position. In the first instance, it is defined as rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes; and it is next defined as income derived from such land by agriculture or by the activities described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 2 (I) (b) of the Act. In the first instance, it is defined as rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes; and it is next defined as income derived from such land by agriculture or by the activities described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 2 (I) (b) of the Act. These activities are postulated to be performed by the cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind of such land in regard to the products raised or received by him which necessarily means the produce raised on the land either by himself or by the actual cultivator of the land who pays such rent-in-kind to, him. If produce raised or received by the cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind is thus made the subject-matter of clauses (ii) and (iii) in section 2 (I) (b) of the Act, the term 'agriculture' used in clause (i)of section 2 (I) (b) must also be similarly restricted to the performance of the basic operations on the land and there is no scope for reading the term 'agriculture' in the still wider sense indicated above. If the term 'agriculture' is thus understood as comprising within its scope the basic as well as subsequent operations in the process of agriculture and the raising on the land of products which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce, it will be seen that the term 'agriculture' receives a wider interpretation both in regard to its operations as well as the results of the same. Nevertheless there is present all throughout the basic idea that there must be at the bottom of it cultivation of land in the sense of tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting, and similar work done on the land itself. This basic conception is the essential sine qua non of any operation performed on the land constituting agricultural operation. If the basic operations are there, the rest of the operations found themselves upon the same. But if these basic operations are wanting the subsequent operations do not acquire the characteristic of agricultural operations. All these operations no doubt require the expenditure of human labour and skill but the human labour and skill spent in' the performance of the basic operations' only can be said to have been spent upon the land. But if these basic operations are wanting the subsequent operations do not acquire the characteristic of agricultural operations. All these operations no doubt require the expenditure of human labour and skill but the human labour and skill spent in' the performance of the basic operations' only can be said to have been spent upon the land. The human labour and skill spent in the performance of subsequent operations cannot be said to have been spent on the land itself, though it may have the effect of preserving, fostering and regenerating the products of .the land." 6. In Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Kerala vs. George Varghese & Co, reported in 90 ITR 496, the Kerala High Court had the occasion to deal with similar question.. In that case the assessee entered into a contract with a rubber estate which stated that the rubber trees on the specified land had become old and uneconomic and with a view to replant rubber in the said land, the vendor had agreed to sell the said trees to the purchaser with the roots standing on the vendor's land with all the rights to do with the trees in the manner the purchaser thought fit. The question whether the income derived therefrom cquld be regarded as 'agricultural income'. The High Court held that the income though derived from land, had been derived by. the assessee who even though had not undertaken the basic operation relating to agriculture, nevertheless would come within the definition of 'agricultural income'. 7. In view of this, the law has been well settled and, therefore, there is no referable question and, accordingly, we dismiss this petition. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.