Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J of the IT Act ?" * 2. The assessment year involved in the tax case is for the year 1978-79. The assessee during the assessment proceedings for the year 1978-79, claimed deduction under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961, but the ITO following his earlier order, rejected the claim of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Madras and the CIT(A), following his earlier order for the asst. yr. 1977-78, allowed the claim of the assessee. On further appeal to the Tribunal by the Department, the Tribunal, following its order in ITA Nos. 1337 and 1448/Mad/1980 dt. 19th August, 1981 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 in the assessee's own case, held that the assessee was an industrial company and entitled to the relief under s. 80J of the Act. It is this order which is the subject-matter of this tax case 3. At the time of hearing of the reference case, Mr. S. V. Subramanian, learned senior standing counsel for the income-tax placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Tax Case No. 1410 of 1982 dt. 19th January, 1996 (wherein one of us was a party) in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and the Bench, following a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. 1993 1993 AIR(SC) 2529, 1994 (S1) SCC 280, 1993 (5) JT 346 , 1993 (3) SCALE 726 , 1993 (204) ITR 412, 1993 (91) STC 450, 1993 (3) Scale 726 , 1993 (114) CTR 420, 1993 (70) TAXMANN 312, 1993 (2) TLR 1117, 114 CTR(SC) 420, 1993 AIR(SCW) 3317, 1993 TaxLR 1117 (SC) : TC 25R.185, answered the question referred to it in the negative and in favour of the Revenue 4. Mr. Mr. S. V. Subramanian, learned senior standing counsel for the income-tax submitted that since the Tribunal has followed an earlier order of the Tribunal and the view expressed by the Tribunal was found not acceptable to this Court, the present tax case also should be answered in favour of the Revenue since the Tribunal, in the instant case, has merely followed its earlier order. Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that in the earlier order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the question whether the assessee is an industrial company or not was considered in detail and after analysing the facts of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee should be regarded as an industrial company, and entitled to the relief under s. 80J of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal, for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the question should be answered in favour of the assessee 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The earlier order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1976-77, as already seen, was subject-matter of the reference in TC No. 1410 of 1982 and this Court, has answered the question referred to it, in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. It is not brought to our notice any new fact or any new material distinguishing the earlier case. It is also found from the order of the Tribunal that the factual situation continue to be the same for the subsequent asst. yr. 1978-79 as well. Since this Court has rendered a judgment for the asst. yr. 1976-77 holding that the assessee is not an industrial company, we are of the view that it is not possible to take a different view on the same factual situation. Mr. Janarthana Raja submitted that the question, atleast, can be referred to a Full Bench so that there can be an authoritative view on this point. It is also not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee for the reason that the decision of this Court in Tax Case No. 1410 of 1982 was rendered on the same facts found by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1978-79. It is also not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee for the reason that the decision of this Court in Tax Case No. 1410 of 1982 was rendered on the same facts found by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1978-79. Since there are no new facts and no materials which have come into existence warranting us to take a different view, it is not possible to refer the matter to a Full Bench, for reconsideration of the issue. Further, it is seen, the earlier Bench of this Court has followed a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (supra), in answering the question referred to it and hence, we are not inclined to take a different view. Therefore, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. No costs.