Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM J. In this tax case petition relating to the assessment year 1983-84 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assesses requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 59, 88, 893 under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 42, 67, 554?". For the assessment year 1983-84, the previous year ended on June 30, 1982. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of pesticides and chemicals. It claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 59, 88, 893 under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the property at Spur Tank Road, Madras, was intended to be used or setting up of a research laboratory. The Income-tax Officer has disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was not actually utilised for research and development purpose and the entire expenditure was not incurred in the accounting year and that a portion of the property was utilised for administrative purposes. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. As against this order, a second appeal was preferred before -the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also, considering the fact that the assessee has not established that the abovesaid land was purchased for the purpose of setting up a research laboratory, confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)Another item of property was purchased for Rs. 42, 67, 554 being ten acres of land in Gujarat. The assessee claimed that this land was agreed to be purchased to set up a scientific research unit and claimed this amount as a deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. According to the Income-tax Officer, the land was not actually acquired and no research activities were carried on therein. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. According to the Income-tax Officer, the land was not actually acquired and no research activities were carried on therein. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Under section 35(1)(iv), if the assessee acquired capital asset for the purpose of setting up a research laboratory, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the expenditure incurred towards acquiring the capital asset. In the present case, the assessee purchased the lands at Spur Tank Road, Madras, for a sum of Rs. 59, 88, 893. According to the assessee, this land was purchased for the purpose of utilising the same for research and development purposes. Except the statement made by the assessee, no further evidence was produced before the authorities below to show that this land was purchased for setting up of a research laboratory. Further, the Income-tax Officer noted that a portion of the property was utilised for administrative purposes. Therefore, on considering all the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee failed to establish that the said land was purchased for research and development purposes. Hence, the claim for deduction of the sale value of the land was not allowed. In so far as the land relating to Gujarat is concerned, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 42, 67, 554 as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer pointed out that actually this land was not acquired by the assessee and no research activities were carried therein. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. It was contended before the Tribunal that the assessee obtained possession of this land and, therefore, in view of section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the assessee should be deemed to be in possession of the land and, therefore, the land value should be deducted. It has to be seen that no evidence was adduced before the authorities below to show that this land was utilised for the purpose of setting up a research and development unit. It has to be seen that no evidence was adduced before the authorities below to show that this land was utilised for the purpose of setting up a research and development unit. Therefore, on the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this land was not purchased for the purpose of setting up a research and development unit. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the authorities below in the matter of disallowing the claim made under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Inasmuch as the abovesaid conclusions were arrived at by the Tribunal on an appraisal of facts, we consider that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as framed and suggested by the assessee. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.