P. G. Agarwal, J. — At the instance of Revenue and as per direction of this Court in Civil Rule No. 18 (M) of 1992, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for opinion of this Court, under section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. “(1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of the wives of the Directors were necessary for the business of the assessee company? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of Rule 8 (I) of IT Rules 1962 the Tribunal has erred in law in accepting CIT (A)'s decision that 40% of the sale proceeds of the scraps and discount of aluminum linings should be taken as income liable to be taxed ?” In respect of question No.l the facts are that the Assessing Officer did not allow the assessee's claim that expenditure on travelling incurred for the wives of the Directors is an allowable deduction. The CIT (Appeals) on appeal sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that such expenditure is an allowable item. We have heard Mr. GK Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan, and Shri R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the assessee assisted by Shri H. Roy. Shri R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that so far the question No. 2 is concerned, an identical question was answered by this Court in Income Tax Reference No.11 of 1995, Commissioner of Income Tax, NE Region, Shillong vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd, Calcutta, decided on 22nd August, 1996. Learned counsel for both sides have, therefore, fairly submitted that the question No.2 needs no further adjudication. In support pf the other question, the learned counsel for the Revenue has. submitted that the expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the two of the wives of the two Directors would partake the character of personal expenses and there was absolutely no materials before the Tribunal to classsify the same as business expenses. Section 37 (1) of the Act reads as follows: “37. submitted that the expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the two of the wives of the two Directors would partake the character of personal expenses and there was absolutely no materials before the Tribunal to classsify the same as business expenses. Section 37 (1) of the Act reads as follows: “37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business, or profession.” 6. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the Revenue has referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. TS Haji Moosa Co, 153 ITR 422, wherein it was held that the expenses of the wives travel on foreign tour are in the nature of personal expenses. In the case of Sassoon J. David and Co Pvt Ltd vs. CIT/Bombay 118 ITR 261, the Apex Court observed that the expression wholly and exclusively used in sectipn 10 (2) of the Act, 1922 does not mean necessarily and such expenditure if incurred for promoting business, the assessee can claim deduction. In case of CIT, Baroda vs. Navasari Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd, 135 ITR 546, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court laid down certain guidelines and also some positive and negative test for deciding whether a particular expenditure is a business expenditure and that will be taken or not. 7. There is no dispute at the Bar regarding the proposition of law in respect of a business expenditure. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 256 (2) of the Act is advisory in nature and only a question of law are to be answered. In present case no question of law as such is involved. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the materials available before them held that the expenses claimed by the assessee for the two wives are business expenses. In present case no question of law as such is involved. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the materials available before them held that the expenses claimed by the assessee for the two wives are business expenses. According to the learned counsel the expenses were in connection with the tour of India by the two wives of the foreign Directors and these two ladies visited the tea gardens of the assessee company and promoted goodwill. Shri Gogoi further submits that in the absence of a proper question as regard the validity of findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal, this Court cannot come to any independent conclusion itself on facts. In support of his contention learned counsel has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hoogly Trust (Pvt) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 73 ITR 685, wherein the Apex Court observed: “It is possible to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent that, in spite of the form in which the question had been referred, it was open to the High Court to examine the correctness of the conclusions of the Tribunal on facts. There can be no dispute that, if the Tribunal does not consider the evidence covering all the matters and basis its findings upon some evidence only ignoring other essential material, that would amount to a misdirection in law and the findings would give rise to a question liable to be referred to the High Court. But it is equally well settled that, if it is sought to raise the question about the validity of the findings on fact or one reason or another, reference of a proper question challenging those findings must first be sought before those findings can be challenged before the High Court : see India Cements Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Hazarat Pirmahomed Shah Saheb Roza Committee vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. No attempt was made before the Tribunal to have any such question referred and in the absence of a proper question it was not open to the High Court to accept the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in preference to those given by the Tribunal or to come to any independent conclusion itself on facts.” 8. No attempt was made before the Tribunal to have any such question referred and in the absence of a proper question it was not open to the High Court to accept the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in preference to those given by the Tribunal or to come to any independent conclusion itself on facts.” 8. As the validity of findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal has not been challenged, this Court cannot entertain the same. The answer to the question No. 2 of the Reference is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Reference in respect of the other question stands answers as per order in Income Tax Reference No.11 of 1995, as stated above.