ARijit PASAYAT ( 1 ) THESE two reference applications are inter-linked. Both the assessee and the revenue moved for references under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-B ( tribunal in short) referred the following question at the instance of Revenue for opinion of this Court: "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,423. 00?"at the instance of assessee three questions have been referred, which ran as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to vacancy allowance for the period 1. 4. 7 2/10/1972 in respect of the portions which had not been let out till October, 1972 following the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahmudabad Properties, 124 ITR 31?" "2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee could not be treated as the owner of the three flats in the building akash Deep ? "3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the income enjoyed by the assessee from those flats would be assessed under the head income from other sources and not under the head income from house property ?" ( 2 ) THE question that essentially arises is whether the property which was first let out with effect from 1/11/1972 could have the benefit of vacancy allowance in terms of Section 24 (1) (ix) of the Act. As regards the question referred at the instance of Revenue is concerned, a similar question has come up for consideration of this court in ITR 197/81 titled Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. M/s. C. Lyall and Co (Lucknow Airfield) New Delhi, disposed of on 8/01/2001. Following the answer given in the said case, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of assessee and against Revenue. ( 3 ) COMING to the questions referred at the instance of the assessee, second and third questions are covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of income-tax Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Limited and Ors. (1997)226 ITR 625. ( 3 ) COMING to the questions referred at the instance of the assessee, second and third questions are covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of income-tax Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Limited and Ors. (1997)226 ITR 625. Following the said decision, both the second and third questions have to be answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. ( 4 ) SO far as the crucial question No. 1 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal did not elaborately deal with the matter and recorded only the following finding: "the first two grounds of appeal pertain to vacancy allowance in respect of 2nd and 3rd floors of the building Sandhya Deep under the provisions of section 24 of the Act. It is also urged that the authorities below were wrong in assessing the income of the portions of the property which were unoccupied. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that till a building is occupied after it is built, the income thereof cannot be assessed. Alternatively, the claim is for vacancy allowance for that period. The matter is however directly covered by the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Mahmudabad Properties, 124 ITR 31. Respectfully following the same we hold that the authorities below were correct in denying the claim for vacancy allowance. They were also correct in notionally assessing the income from the property even when it was not let out. "it is agreed at the Bar that the decision in Mahmudabad Properties case has no direct bearing on the subject-matter at issue. As the Tribunal did not examine the matter and simply stated that the issue was directly covered by the decision of the apex Court, we feel that it would be appropriate if the Tribunal hears the matter afresh only in respect of the issue covered by question No. 1, referred at the instance of assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of that issue.