Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The assessee-company - Coimbatore Premier Corpn. (P.) Ltd., Coimbatore - had a manufacturing and a trading unit. In the manufacturing unit, the assessee-company was manufacturing motor, s, pump sets and allied electrical products. In the trading unit, apart front selling items manufactured by the assessee-company it was also selling goods manufactured by others. 2. (a) On 21-4-1977, the manufacturing unit of the assessee had been closed down and as a consequence, the assessee-company had to pay to the workers an amount of Rs. 1, 93, 495 towards closure compensation and Rs. 67, 668 towards notice pay as per the award dated 30-9-1978 under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. (b) In the original assessment, the ITO allowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction of the aforesaid amount as revenue expenditure. (c) Thereafter, the Commissioner started revisionary proceedings cinder, section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') because in his view, such payments were not admissible as revenue expenditure. The Commissioner, however, held that the expenditure pertaining to the discontinued business being of a capital nature could not be allowed. The Commissioner, accordingly, directed the ITO to recompute the income of the assessee. (d) On appeal by the assessee-company, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner. that the manufacturing unit of the assessee-company had been closed down and not temporarily suspended as contended by the assessee, that the expenditure on compensation related to the closure of the manufacturing unit and as such, the same was of capital nature and, hence, not allowable as revenue expenditure. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon Binani Printers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corpn. The Tribunal, accordingly, confirmed the ordet, of the Commissioner. 3. It is on these facts the question of law, as below, is referred to this Court for its opinion under section 256(1) of the Act, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the compensation paid by the assessee-company to its workers pursuant to the award dated 30-9-1978 of the Industrial Tribunal under section 25FFF of the Industrial Act, 1947 is not allowable as revenue expenditure ?" 4. Arguments of Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, the learned counsel representing Mr. R. Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and of Mr. Arguments of Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, the learned counsel representing Mr. R. Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and of Mr. R. Sivaraman, the learned counsel representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, the learned junior standing counsel, representing the revenue were heard. 5. It is not as if the question, as stated above, as arising for consideration in the instant case, did not at all arise at any anterior point of time before a Division Bench of this Court and the plain fact is that such a question arose for consideration in a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Venkatesa Colour Works v. CIT. 6. The facts of that case may briefly be referred to here for a better appreciation of the question involved therein. (a) The assessee-firm decided to close its factory with effect from 10-4-1967 and, consequently, an agreement was entered into on 7-4-1967, between the management and the workers, under which the compensation payable to the workmen was determined. The factory was, however, not closed on 10-4-1967 but actually closed only on 15-7-1967 and the payments to the workers were made thereafter. The claim of the assessee to deduct the payments made to the workers in its assessment for 1967-68, relevant for the year ended 30-4-1967, was rejected by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal(b) on a reference to this Court, at the instance of the assessee, this Court. held that the scheme of the relevant section 25(FFF) makes it clear that the amount was payable only on closure of the business and, hence, the closure of the business and the accrual or arising of the liability to pay compensation are concurrent and, therefore, from the point of view of time, one cannot be separated from the other. Hence, the compensation payable under section 25(FFF) cannot be said to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for carrying on the business or an expenditure laid down wholly or exclusively for the purpose the business. In fact, it is an expenditure incurred by the assessee for closing down of his business. Accordingly, the amount in question cannot be allowed as a deduction. (c) This Court in arriving at a conclusion followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Gemini Cashew Sales Corpn.'s case (supra). 7. In fact, it is an expenditure incurred by the assessee for closing down of his business. Accordingly, the amount in question cannot be allowed as a deduction. (c) This Court in arriving at a conclusion followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Gemini Cashew Sales Corpn.'s case (supra). 7. It goes without saying that on the face of the decision cited above, the Tribunal has rightly held that the compensation paid by the assessee-company to its workers pursuant to the award dated 30-9-1978 of the Industrial Tribunal under section 25FFF is not allowable as a revenue expenditure. The point is answered accordingly. 8. The tax case is, thus, disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.