Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the monetary payments made by the assessee-company to its employees by way of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the employees did not represent expenditure resulting in the provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisite to the said employees within the meaning of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act?". The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessee claimed that certain amount of reimbursement of medical expenses in respect of the five executives should not be included for applying the ceiling provided under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Assessing Officer negatived the claim for both the years. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim and, on further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal also held that the monetary payments made by the assessee to its employees by way of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by them would not represent the expenditure resulting directly or indirectly in the provision of any benefit or amenity to the said employees under section 40A(5) of the Act Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue has sought for and obtained a reference on the common question of law set out above It is however necessary to mention that certain other questions at the instance of the assessee were also referred to this court by a common statement of the case and we have in T. C. Nos. 278 and 279 of 1986 by judgment dated April 9, 1997, answered the questions of law against the assessee. These two tax cases, namely, 280 and 281 of 1986 were not listed in on that date and we directed the office to post them before us. Hence, the matter has come before usAt the time of hearing of the reference, Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, has fairly brought to our attention a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. Hence, the matter has come before usAt the time of hearing of the reference, Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, has fairly brought to our attention a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1996 AIR(SC) 3003, 1996 (219) ITR 644, 1996 (2) Scale 676 , 1996 (7) SCC 569 , 1996 (132) CTR 248, 1996 (85) TAXMAN 381, 1996 (2) TLR 440, 1996 (3) JT 173 , 1996 (2) AD(SC) 573, 1996 (1) BC 588, 1996 (3) Supreme 397 , 1996 (132) CTR(SC) 248 3511wherein the Supreme Court has held that the cash payments by an assessee to his/its employees do not fall within the ambit of section 40(a)(v) or section 40A(5)(a)(ii) of the Act. Since the order of the Appellate Tribunal is in conformity with the view of the Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, in the affirmative and against the Revenue.