JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the undernoted questions, arising out of the common order dated January 17, 1990, passed by it in I.T.A. Nos. 294 to 296/Ind. of 1985 and I.T.A. No. 1031/Ind. of 1984 for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1978-79 on applications registered as R.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Ind. of 1990, for our consideration and opinion : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to enlarge its claim in the assessment year 1974-75 for weighted deduction at the stage of fresh assessment pursuant to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction on storage charges and rent on de-oiled cake stored on way to Bombay awaiting shipment, rent for tarpaulin to protect the de-oiled cake stored at Bombay Port Trust godown, clearing and forwarding charges paid, survey fees and quality fitness report, etc., of de-oiled cake, fumigation charges, sundry expenses, i.e., the cost of stamps, etc., charges recovered by banks for the letter of credit, collection of bills, payments, etc., travelling expenses, conveyance, export duty, ocean freight ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee will be entitled to weighted deduction on the following expenses as under :-- __________________________________________________________________ Office rent 50 per cent. Miscellaneous expenditure 50 per cent. Stationery charges 75 per cent. Postage expenses 75 per cent. Salary to staff 75 per cent. Telephone charges 75 per cent. only" __________________________________________________________________ 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The aforesaid four appeals were filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated August 18, 1984, for the aforesaid assessment years. The assessee-company derives income mainly from export of de-oiled cakes. On consideration of the facts and position of law, the Tribunal allowed the appeals only in part. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not entitled to enlarge its claim in the assessment year 1974-75 for weighted deduction at the stage of fresh assessment pursuant to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On consideration of the facts and position of law, the Tribunal allowed the appeals only in part. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not entitled to enlarge its claim in the assessment year 1974-75 for weighted deduction at the stage of fresh assessment pursuant to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It also found that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction on storage charges and rent, etc. The Tribunal allowed weighted deduction on specific expenses as particularised in the statement of the case. Dissatisfied by the order to the extent of rejection, the assessee filed the applications under Section 256(1) of the Act on which the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid questions. 3. We have heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee and Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant/Department. 4. Shri Saboo submitted that the aforesaid questions are questions of law and do arise out of the order passed in the aforesaid appeals. On the other hand, Shri Vyas submitted that the order of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of the evidentiary material and in view of the conclusion resting on facts, there are no referable questions of law arising out of the order. He, therefore, prays for answer in favour of the Department. 5. We have read the statement of the case which runs into nine pages. From paragraphs 1 to 11, the Tribunal has stated the factual position before all the authorities. Thereafter in paragraph 12, the Tribunal has stated that--"From and out of these facts and circumstances, the following questions of law arise" which are referred to this court. The statement of the case does not reflect as to how the aforesaid questions were considered by the Tribunal as questions of law arising from and out of the facts and circumstances narrated in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the statement of the case. 6. We have read the order dated January 17, 1990. The order deals with the factual position and also discussed the authorities cited by the assessee. The Tribunal categorically stated that the authorities cited by the assessee do not help it on the basis of reasonings furnished by the Tribunal. That being so it is inexplicable as to how the Tribunal at a later stage deemed it fit to label the questions as of law and stated the case. The Tribunal categorically stated that the authorities cited by the assessee do not help it on the basis of reasonings furnished by the Tribunal. That being so it is inexplicable as to how the Tribunal at a later stage deemed it fit to label the questions as of law and stated the case. To illustrate we quote only one paragraph, i.e., paragraph 16, from the aforesaid order : "The assessee will not be entitled for weighted deduction under Section 35B on storage charges and rent on de-oiled cake stored on way to Bombay awaiting shipment, rent for tarpaulins to protect de-oiled cake stored at Bombay Port Trust Godown, clearing and forwarding charges paid, survey fees and quality fitness reports, etc., of de-oiled cake, fumigation charges, sundry expenses, i.e., cost of stamps, etc., charges recovered by banks for letter of credit, collection of bills, payments, etc., travelling expenses, conveyance, export duty, ocean freight. Reliance is placed on the decisions in J. Hemchand and Co. (1 SOT 150) ; Gedore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd. v. IAC [1988] 25 ITD 193 (Delhi) [SB]; Tara Agencies v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 102 (Ker) ; CIT v. Asiatic Sea Foods [1986] 160 ITR 869 (Ker)." 7. Counsel for the assessee was unable to demonstrate as to how the aforesaid questions are questions of law. On scrutiny, we find that the questions turn on the peculiar facts of the case and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is found to be on firm foundation not liable to be categorised as erroneous or contrary to law. 8. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 543 (SC) and in CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons [1971] 79 ITR 499 (SC), it is held that conclusion based on question of fact does not give rise to any question of law. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied with the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal on January 17, 1990. It does not manifest any infirmity or illegality. 10. It thus becomes luculent that the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that it took. In fact the Tribunal did allow the weighted deductions on certain expenses as were found permissible under the law. 11. Accordingly, we answer all these three questions in the affirmative, i.e., against the applicant/assessee and in favour of the non-applicant/Department. 12. 10. It thus becomes luculent that the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that it took. In fact the Tribunal did allow the weighted deductions on certain expenses as were found permissible under the law. 11. Accordingly, we answer all these three questions in the affirmative, i.e., against the applicant/assessee and in favour of the non-applicant/Department. 12. This miscellaneous civil case is thus disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. 13. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 14. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal.