Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. Pursuant to the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 208 of 1983, dated November 21, 1983, the following three questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act is not valid in law? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, on merits, that the assessee is entitled to the allowance of extra shift allowance on the entire plant and machinery and not on the basis of the actual user of the said plant and machinery ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the development rebate at higher rate ?" A fair reading of the questions clearly indicates that the first question deals with the question of jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). But the second and third questions deal with the merits of the case as well In so far as the second question of law that is referred to us is concerned, it is seen that the issue raised in that question is covered against the Department by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT wherein the apex court held that the extra shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days during which the concern had actually worked double shift or triple shift and the said allowance is not required to be calculated on the basis of the number of days a particular item of machinery or plant had worked double shift or triple shift. In the instant case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is that the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance on the entire plant and machinery and not on the basis of the actual user of the said plant and machinery and its view is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in South India Viscose Ltd.'s. Accordingly, we answer the second question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the RevenueIn so far as the third question is concerned, the point that arises is whether the assessee is entitled to development rebate at the rate of 25 per cent. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee only on the ground that the assessee was manufacturing only cotton yarn which would not fall within item No. 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act. A similar question whether the assessee manufacturing cotton yarn would be entitled to development rebate it the rate of 25 per cent, came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. North Arcot District Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. and this court has taken a view that the assessee manufacturing cotton yarn would be entitled to the benefit of development rebate at the higher rate of development rebate. Following the said decision, we answer the third question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Since we have answered questions Nos. 2 and 3, which relate to the merits of the case against the Department, it is not necessary to answer the first question of law and, accordingly, we are not providing any answer to the first question of law. There will be no order as to costs.