M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) AS the two applications filed under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, by the revenue and assessee respectively, arise out of the same assessment year, namely, 1983-84 and also from the same facts, we propose to dispose of the the two applications by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) BOTH the applications relate to the assessment year 1983-84. ( 3 ) IN the application filed by the Revenue under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the following questions said to be questions of law are sought to be referred to this Court for its opinion:- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in holding that the liability of Rs. 1094326. 00 on account of surcharge on the electricity consumed was a statutory liability and was an allowable deduction even though it was disputed? 2. Whether, the ITAT had any material to hold that the monthly bills which included the disputed charges were presented to the assessee in all the earlier months and the entire amount of Rs. 1094326. 00 claimed as a deduction pertained to the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 and that this liability had accrued during the year. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT that both annealing and pickling was done for consignments where the time takes as recorded in challan, was less than 50 minutes is legally correct and based on any evidence, when in the demonstration run of the machinery, the minimum time for these activities was recorded as 50 minutes per MT? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction for pickling and annealing charges @ Rs. 1250. 00 per MT in respect of all the consignments sent to HSP?" ( 4 ) THE brief facts common to both the applications are that the assessee company was engaged in the manufacture of steel strips and box strips. It also does job work of annealing and pickling as well as rolling. A claim of Rs. 10,94,326. 00 of the assessee on account of surcharge in respect of electricity consumed was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. It also does job work of annealing and pickling as well as rolling. A claim of Rs. 10,94,326. 00 of the assessee on account of surcharge in respect of electricity consumed was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal of the assessee CIT (A) confirmed the claim of the assessee holding that the liability in question was statutory one and not contractual and that the liability relates to the account year and arose during the year. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the assessee claimed to have paid to M/s. Haryana Steel Products about Rs. 20. 00 lakhs for annealing and pickling. This account was debited under the Head Salaries and Wages. The Assessing Officer found that Haryana Steel Products was a proprietory concern of a family trust of Shri M. K. Mohta, a Director of the Company and that the trust has been created for the benefit of wife, children and grand children of Shri M. K. Mohta. The Assessing Officer considered the payment of Rs. 2,500. 00 per mt paid to M/s. Haryana Steel Products as excessive and unreasonable and accordingly, the rate of Rs. 600. 00 as reasonable rate. The assessee being aggrieved, appealed to CIT (A) who after consideration of the parties of the assessee found that Rs. 2,500. 00 as excessive and held Rs. 1,250. 00 per mt as reasonable. Against the aforesaid findings of the CIT (A) both the assessee and the revenue came on appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal upheld Rs. 1250. 00 per m. t. as reasonable. The Tribunal also considered as to whether the provisions of Section 40-A (2) are attracted in this case or not and on consideration of the same came to a finding that the payment was made to a trust called Krishna Mohta Kosh. The settler of the trust was found to be Yagya Bhu and the beneficiaries included children of the settler and the wife, grand children of Mr. M. K. Mohta and their spouces and Shri K. K. Mohta was found to be one of the Directors of the Company and accordingly. The Tribunal held that as the payment to Haryana Steel Products was found to be the trustees where the beneficiaries are relations of the Director, the provisions of Section 40 A (2) was applicable. M. K. Mohta and their spouces and Shri K. K. Mohta was found to be one of the Directors of the Company and accordingly. The Tribunal held that as the payment to Haryana Steel Products was found to be the trustees where the beneficiaries are relations of the Director, the provisions of Section 40 A (2) was applicable. ( 6 ) THE Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1067/ Del of 1988, filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for referring the aforesaid four questions arising out of the assessment year 1983-84 for the opinion of this Court, which after due consideration by the Tribunal was rejected holding the aforesaid questions as questions of fact. Accordingly, this application has been preferred by the revenue. ( 7 ) WE have heard, the learned counsel for the Revenue as also the learned counsel for the assessee. ( 8 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the revenue that all the four questions sought to be raised in this application are questions of law and that Tribunal was wrong in coming to the contrary conclusion. We have been taken through the contents of the questions No. 1 and 2 and on perusal of the same, we find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that electric surcharge is a statutory liability Is by now a settled issue. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revenue also could not dispute about the correctness of the aforesaid findings. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the answer to the said question would be mere academic and self evident and no useful purpose would be served by calling a reference on those questions which are also based on findings of fact. ( 10 ) WE, therefore, decline to call for reference on the aforesaid two questions. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the other two questions, namely, in questions No. 3 and 4, in our opinion, are covered by decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi III v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. ( 10 ) WE, therefore, decline to call for reference on the aforesaid two questions. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the other two questions, namely, in questions No. 3 and 4, in our opinion, are covered by decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi III v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. reported in "itr 179 page 599" and also in ITC No. 139/92, Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Mohta Electro Steel Ltd. , decided on 28th September, 1994 and in ITC No. 86/93- Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Mohta Electro Steel Ltd. , decided on 13th December, 1994. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, therefore, in our opinion, no question of law arises out of questions No. 3 and 4 also and therefore, we decline to call for reference on the aforesaid two questions as well. ( 13 ) IN the result, the application filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. ( 14 ) NOW coming to the application filed by the assessee under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 the assessee seeks to refer for the opinion of this Court. Seven following questions as questions of law. ( 15 ) WHITE issuing notice by this Court on 6th August, 1992 on the aforesaid application filed by the assessee questions No. 2 to 7 were held to be questions of fact and notice was issued by this Court to the respondents restricted only to question No. 1. Therefore, in the present application, we have only to consider as to whether the question No. 1 as set out in the application filed by the assessee, is a question of law and whether the said question is fit to be referred to this Court for its opinion. We set out the said question hereunder: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in holding that provisions of Section 40a (2) were attracted? ( 16 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as also the learned counsel for the Revenue. ( 17 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the question of law sought to be raised is a question to law and the Tribunal was wrong in not referring the same to this Court for its opinion. ( 17 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the question of law sought to be raised is a question to law and the Tribunal was wrong in not referring the same to this Court for its opinion. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue during the course of his arguments relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow reported in "itr 117 page 569" and also decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi III v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. reported in "itr 179 page 599". The dispute sought to be raised by the assessee in the present petition appears to be covered by the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions. We are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of question No. 1 and therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that no question of law has arisen therefrom. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the application filed by the assessee also stands dismissed.