Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The question of law referred to us was at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the respondent's income for the asst. yr. 1968-69 is, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the ITO under s. 154 as infructuous when the earlier order under s. 155(5) has not become final because of the pendency of the reference." During the pendency of this reference the validity of the order made under s. 155(5) came to be finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 256-261/84, CIT vs. Vijaya Productions (P) Ltd. The apex Court by its judgment dt. 15th January, 1998, has held that the order of the ITO withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1972-73 was valid as the assessee's proprietary business has been converted a partnership firm. The clear consequence of the order of the apex Court is that the order of ITO withdrawing the development rebate was at all times a valid order from the time the order was made, including the time at which the order of rectification was made. The Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that the order of rectification under s. 154 was infructuous. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time the order under s. 154 was made there was no valid order under s. 155(5) as the order that had been made under that provision had been cancelled by the Tribunal. The correctness of the decision of the Tribunal was very much a matter in issue and was the very question that was decided by the apex Court, in the Civil Appeal referred to earlier. That the question regarding the validity of the order made under s. 155(5) had not attained finality and that finality was attained only on 15th January, 1998, when the apex Court delivered the judgment in the civil appeal referred to earlier. It is therefore, not possible to accept the submission made for the assessee that at the time the order of the ITO was made under s. 154 there was no valid order under s. 155(5). It is therefore, not possible to accept the submission made for the assessee that at the time the order of the ITO was made under s. 154 there was no valid order under s. 155(5). The order made under that provision which had been set aside was later restored and that restoration relates back to the date on which that order was first madeIt has been found by the apex Court that the assessee was not entitled to the development rebate which had been allowed for the asst. yr. 1965-66 to 1972-73. The order under s. 155(5) was warranted on account of the conversion of the assessee's proprietary business into a partnership firm. The order made under s. 154 was a valid order. The order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The question referred to us is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in a sum of Rs. 1, 000.