D. N. Baruah, J.- At the instance of the Revenue the following question has been referred under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act' : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in holding that expenditure of Rs.87,20.589/- incurred in the construction of railway track and siding was of the nature of revenue expenditure and on that reasoning in allowing one fifth of the total expenditure as on admissible of deduction." 2. The facts for the purpose of answering this question may be stated as follows. The assessee is a Government undertaking in public sector engaged in refining of crude oil and production of various kinds of bye products. The assessee contributed a sum of Rs.87,20,598/- to the Railway Department for construction of railway track and siding etc outside the refinery complex. The assessee claimed the said expenditure as revenue expenditure because according to the assessee the expenditure was for carrying out its business activity in profitable and advantageous manner. The assessee decided to write off the aforesaid expenditure in five equal annual installments and accordingly claimed deduction of Rs.l 7,44,1 20/- in each assessment year of 1981-82 and 1982-83. The assessing officer disallowed the same. According to him the expenditure was a capital expenditure for the obvious reason that the assessee acquired asset of enduring nature. 3. The assessee took up the matter by way of appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) endorsed the view of the assessing officer. The assessee was aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) and went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also affirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals) holding that the expenditure was a capital expenditure. Hence the present reference. 4. We have heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Talukdar. learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 5. Mr. Joshi submits that the expenditure incurred for construction of railway track and siding are assets of enduring nature. Therefore, it is a capital expenditure. On the otherhand, Mr. Talukdar submits that laying down of railway track and siding was necessary for the purpose of smooth running of the business of the refainery in a more profitable and advantageous manner. 6. Joshi submits that the expenditure incurred for construction of railway track and siding are assets of enduring nature. Therefore, it is a capital expenditure. On the otherhand, Mr. Talukdar submits that laying down of railway track and siding was necessary for the purpose of smooth running of the business of the refainery in a more profitable and advantageous manner. 6. In the rival contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue as well as on behalf of the assessee. it is to be seen whether under the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. In this connection reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in LH Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, UP, 125 ITR 293. In the said case it was held that the expenditure were made for the purpose of construction of roads in area around a factory which were wholly and exclusively laid out for business. The Supreme Court held that it was not a capital expenditure but a revenue expenditure and the entire expenditure were allowable as deduction. In another decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd, 172 ITR 257 the Supreme Court held that it was a revenue expenditure because advantage secured only in field of revenue. 7. Following the above two decisions we find that this case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court and accordingly we hold that the expenditure incurred for construction of railway track and siding were of revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure and. therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction. The next point is whether deduction can be divided and claimed in five parts. However, no provision is found under the law permitting allowance of one fifth of the expenditure. However, deduction can be made in the relevant year if the same is incurred during that year. In this regard we do not find any discussion in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible for us to answer the said question. We hold that expenditure incurred in the relevant year of assessment shall be allowed. However, deduction can be made in the relevant year if the same is incurred during that year. In this regard we do not find any discussion in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible for us to answer the said question. We hold that expenditure incurred in the relevant year of assessment shall be allowed. If the expenditure is incurred in one year it will be allowed in the same year and if it is incurred in more than one year then it will be in the respective year as actually incurred. It is also not known what was the expenditure incurred during the assessment year 1981-82 and 1982-83. It is for the Tribunal to find out the actual position. 8. Considering all these, we hold that the expenditure of Rs.87.20.598 -was not a capital expenditure but a revenue expenditure. We answer the first part of the question in the affirmative - in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Because of meagre facts, we decline to answer the rest portion.