Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court : I. T. R. No. 122 of 1987 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessees claim for investment allowance and extra shift allowance on electric installations in Oswal Solvent Extraction Unit ?" I. T. R. No. 123 of 1987 : "I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessees claim for deduction on account of amount due for leave with wages ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the Refinery units at Ludhiana and Madras as industrial undertakings for the purpose of investment allowance and deduction under Section 80J with respect thereto ?" 2. Both the references pertain to the assessment year 1980-81. 3. The assessee-company derives income from manufacture and sale of hosiery goods, refined edible oil, vanaspati, ghee, etc. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 1980-81 on April 1, 1980, declaring an income of Rs. 42,69,740. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer on March 25, 1983, at a total income of Rs. 1,42,80,780 by making certain additions/disallowances. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who partially allowed the same, vide his order dated November 6, 1984. Both the assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). These appeals were decided by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 21, 1986. Hence, the present two references. 4. The issue raised in the only question has been dealt with by the Tribunal in paras. 5 and 6 of its order. It has allowed the claim of the assessee for investment allowance and extra shift allowance on the electric installations in Oswal Solvent Extraction Unit by following its order for the assessment year 1979-80. 4. The issue raised in the only question has been dealt with by the Tribunal in paras. 5 and 6 of its order. It has allowed the claim of the assessee for investment allowance and extra shift allowance on the electric installations in Oswal Solvent Extraction Unit by following its order for the assessment year 1979-80. The findings of the Tribunal on these issues in the preceding assessment year have been set aside by us vide our order in I. T. R. Nos. 111 to 113 of 1987, dated May 30, 2002 (CIT V/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (No. 1) [2002] 257 ITR 737 (P & H)). The matter has been restored to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the findings of the Tribunal in the present case are also set aside and the matter is restored to its file for fresh adjudication in accordance with our observations in I. T. R. Nos. 111 to 113 of 1987--CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (No. 1) [2002] 257 ITR 737 (P & H). The question is answered in the above terms. 5. In question No. 1, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal in allowing the assessees claim for deduction of the amount due on account of leave with wages. Mr. R.P. Sawhney has fairly stated that the answer to this question is concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this court in CIT V/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 666. In view of the admitted position, this question is answered against the Revenue. 6. The controversy raised in question No. 2 had also come up for consideration before us in I. T. R. Nos. 111 to 113 of 1987-CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Lid. (No. 1) [2002] 257 ITR 737 (P & H), in the assessees own case for the immediately preceding year. Vide order dated May 30, 2002, we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the second question is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 7. Both the petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.