Judgment :- N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in T.C.P.No.294 of 1996, by order dated 31.3.1997, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 'the Appellate Tribunal') has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the accounting year on the cost of LMW Spinning Frame (Rs.9,27,884/-) and LMW High Speed Draw Frames (Rs.2,14,758/-) was amount paid on current repairs and allowable under section 31 of the I.T.Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the statutory scheme and provisions of section 32 of the I.T.Act and directing allowance of the amount of Rs.12,11,097/- as revenue expenditure? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the amount representing the employer's contribution to provident fund and family provident fund even though the payment was not made within the time specified in second proviso to sec.43B read with explanation below clause V(a) of sub-sec.1 of section 36? 2. In so far as the first two questions are concerned, they relate to the claim of the assessee as deduction under the head, 'business' on the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the purchase of LMW Spinning frame and LMW High Speed Draw frames either as current repairs or revenue expenditure. The case of the assessee was it purchased machinery as a part of modernisation programme and therefore the amount should be allowed either as current repairs or revenue expenditure. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for the modernisation of the mill and no new mill was established by incurring the expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal therefore held that the expenditure would be revenue in nature and allowed the claim of the assessee. 3. We have considered the similar issue that arises in the questions 1 and 2 in M/s.Thanjavur Textiles Ltd., Madras in T.C.No.55 of 1998 and by judgment of even date in T.C.No.55 of 1998, we have remitted the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the questions afresh. 3. We have considered the similar issue that arises in the questions 1 and 2 in M/s.Thanjavur Textiles Ltd., Madras in T.C.No.55 of 1998 and by judgment of even date in T.C.No.55 of 1998, we have remitted the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the questions afresh. Both the counsel also agree that the matter may be remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and decide the issues covered in the first two questions de novo. Accordingly, following our judgment of even date in T.C.No.55 of 1998, we remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the issues that arise in questions 1 and 2 afresh, in accordance with law. 4. In so far as third question is concerned, Mrs.Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that the question has to be answered against the Revenue in view of an earlier decision rendered by this Court wherein this Court has considered a similar issue and held that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction of the amount representing the employer's contribution to provident fund and family provident fund, even though the payment was made after the end of the accounting year, but within the grace period. Accordingly, we answer the third question of law referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 5. In the result, we are not answering the questions 1 and 2, but the Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider and decide the questions 1 and 2 afresh in accordance with law. In so far as the third question is concerned, it is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.