Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80 "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in holding that the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes should be followed by the Income-tax Officer and the assessee should be granted extra-shift allowance accordingly ?" * The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. In so far as the first question of law that is referred to for our consideration is concerned the Appellate Tribunal recorded its finding that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was not manufacturing or producing articles as required for claiming the investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. We have, in the assessee's own case, in an unreported judgment in T.C. Nos. 295, 296 of 1985, 1835 of 1986 - since reported in CIT v. United Bleachers Ltd. 1997 and 312 of 1989 - United Bleachers Ltd. v. CIT (No. 1) following an earlier decision of this court held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. 295, 296 of 1985, 1835 of 1986 - since reported in CIT v. United Bleachers Ltd. 1997 and 312 of 1989 - United Bleachers Ltd. v. CIT (No. 1) following an earlier decision of this court held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. Following the said decisions rendered by us in the assessee's own case, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under the provisions of section 32A of the Act and we answer the first question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assesseeIn so far as the second question of law is concerned, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that the issue raised in the second question is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in South India Viscose Limited v. CIT, wherein the Supreme Court held that the extra-shift allowance had to be calculated on the basis of number of days during which the concern had actually worked double shift or triple shift and does not require to be calculated on the basis of the number of days a particular item of machinery or plant had worked double shift Since the view of the Appellate Tribunal is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court the second question of law referred to us is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee and, accordingly, we answer question of law No. 2 referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee At the conclusion of our judgment, Mr. S. A. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the assessee, prays for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against our decision in so far as the first question of law is concerned. It is seen that we have already granted leave to the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against our decision in T.C. Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985, etc., dated December 22, 1997. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we hereby grant leave to the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court against our decision in T.C. No. 654 of 1985 in so far as the first question of law referred to us is concerned.