Judgment :- N.K. JAIN, J. These tax case petitions are filed by the petitioner to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to refer the following questions law to this court for its consideration and opinion, "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reassessments under section 147(b) of the Act are in order ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and acted without evidence or in disregard of material evidence filed by the assessee in, holding that the salary and maintenance expenses paid to Mr. Nicholas Sundaram was not allowable expenditure ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to several documents filed by the assessee, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the salary and maintenance expenditure incurred by the assessee on Mr. Nicholas Sundaram have been rightly disallowed ? 4. Whether the Tribunal's conclusion about the disallowance of salary and maintenance expenses paid to Mr. Nicholas Sundaram is vitiated in law by referring only to some of the documents in paper book I and II and in omitting to take into account several other important documents filed by the assessee ? 5. Whether having regard, to several documents filed by the assessee, the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that Mr. Nicholas Sundaram did not render any service and there was no employer-employee relationship and the salary and maintenance expenses were not allowable business expenditure ? 6. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal about Mr. Nicholas Sundaram's appointment is based on several wrong assumptions wrong appreciation of the evidence and by ignoring material evidence ? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material for the Tribunal to hold that Mr. Nicholas Sundaram is a relative of the director when the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is that he is not a relative of the director within the meaning of section 2(41) read with section 2(32) of the Act and which finding has been accepted by the Department ? 8. Nicholas Sundaram is a relative of the director when the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is that he is not a relative of the director within the meaning of section 2(41) read with section 2(32) of the Act and which finding has been accepted by the Department ? 8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that depreciation is not allowable under section 37(4) on the building called the guest house but used by the assessee for the purpose of its business ?" As agreed, all the five tax cases petitions are being heard and disposed of by a common order. Learned counsel for the Department submits that the issues are of facts and no question of law is involved. Though these tax cases petitions are filed referring eight questions of law, learned counsel for the petitioner argued only certain questions, which are being dealt with. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, so far as the first question is concerned, on material, the assessing authority has reason to believe that there are sufficient materials to reason the case. The Tribunal has also found that there is material evidence on record. Under the circumstances, we fully agree with learned counsel for the Department that no question of law arises regarding reopening of the case under section 147(b) of the Act. Regarding the other questions, viz., payment of salary and maintenance of expenditure are concerned, it is alleged that Nicholas Sundaram was appointed on May 20, 1978, with effect from June 1, 1978, on the basic salary of Rs. 1, 000 per month plus dearness allowance at 20 per cent. on the basic salary and other benefits as applicable to the other employees of the company. Thereafter, he was deputed to Austria for post graduate studies in automobile and machine building for a period of seven years with leave and pay for the said period. As per the resolution dated September 29, 1980, his salary was also increased. The facts culled out from the materials show that he had no occasion to work in the company and merely by appointing Nicholas Sundaram was sent abroad. It has also come on record that one of the founders of the assessee-company was the uncle of Nicholas Sundaram's father. The facts culled out from the materials show that he had no occasion to work in the company and merely by appointing Nicholas Sundaram was sent abroad. It has also come on record that one of the founders of the assessee-company was the uncle of Nicholas Sundaram's father. The Tribunal on consideration found that no agreement was executed with Nicholas Sundaram and the assessee-company nor any indemnity bond was executed to indemnify the assessee-company, in case Nicholas Sundaram failed to serve in the company after returning from abroad, which is generally done in all cases. It was found that Nicholas Sundaram never served in the company. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has not interfered with the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned for disallowing the expenditure towards him. These are all findings arrived by the Tribunal based on the materials on record. So, in our view, no question of law arises. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after 'completing his course, Nicholas Sundaram wanted leave but leave was sanctioned with a condition that he will not be paid salary. This argument is not acceptable in view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that even after returning from abroad, Nicholas Sundaram worked in the company and was in the employment of the companySo far as the last question, question No. 8 is concerned, the Tribunal found that the depreciation is not allowable under section 37(4) on the building called guest house, but used by the assessee for the purpose of its business. This question need not be answered in view of the amendment to section 37(4) of the Act which gave retrospective effect from February 28, 1970, by which depreciation cannot be allowed. No other question was argued. Thus, on overall consideration we find no question of law is involved in all these petitions. The tax case petitions are dismissed. No costs.