Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, referred following questions for the opinion of the Cour 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of CIT(A) in allowing expenditure of Rs. 6,52,605 as revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee-company from 1st April, 1976 to 20th Nov., 1976, on design and development. 2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of subsidy received from the Central/State Government is not to be deducted from the cost of plant and machinery, buildings, etc. for working out the cost for the purpose of depreciation, investment allowance, etc.” The matter arises out of ITA No. 386/Jp/83 for the asst. yr. 1977-78. 2. Thelearned Counsel for the CIT, Jaipur conceded that the question No. 2 referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, is concluded in favour of the assessee by decision of the Supreme Court and he does not press for opinion of this Court on this question. 3. So far as to the question No. 1 is concerned, the learned Counsel for both the parties made their submissions but for the reasons which are to be stated hereinafter we are satisfied that this question is to be sent back unanswered to the Tribunal. 4. Thelearned Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that the Revenue has not produced on record of this reference the copy of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 386/Jp/83 for the asst. yr. 1977-78. In place of this order on record of this income-tax reference the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 287/Jp/83 of the asst. yr. 1977-78 has been produced. The Revenue has come to know about this lapse on its part in the matter but despite of the same it has not cared to produce the copy of that order out of which this reference arises. Not only this sufficient time has been granted by the Court to produce the copy of the order of the Tribunal out of which this reference arises, still the Revenue has not cared, bothered and concerned to file the same. The reference here may have to the order dt. 21st of August, 2002 which reads: “Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit the correct and relevant order of Tribunal, which is in dispute. The reference here may have to the order dt. 21st of August, 2002 which reads: “Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit the correct and relevant order of Tribunal, which is in dispute. That be submitted within 2 weeks.” 5. The matter was placed on Board on 5th Sept., 2002. Two weeks time was granted on the request of the Department to file the order of the Tribunal which is in dispute but that has not been done. Again on 26th Sept., 2002, the matter was adjourned. Ultimately on 24th Oct., 2002, the arguments were heard and the matter was adjourned to 20th Nov., 2002, for completion of arguments and dictation of order. Still the Department has not cared to file the copy of the order of the Tribunal in dispute. In the absence of the order of the Tribunal which is in dispute in the proceedings, the Court is not in a position to give its opinion on the question referred by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this reference is returned unanswered.