Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an application made at the instance of the assessee under Section 256 (2) of the IT Act to answer the following question of law proposed by them by this Court and to be called from the Tribunal consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under Section 256 (1) of the Act by order dt. 29th Jan. , 1999 passed by Tribunal in RA No. 194/ind/1998 arising out of ITA No. 39/ind/1994 for asst. yr. 1989-90 : "whether, in view of the facts of the case, the Honble Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the CIT (A) and restoring that of AO in respect of liability of tax under Section 115j of the IT Act, 1961 ?" ( 2. ) HEARD Shri M. Phadke, learned counsel for assessee, and Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the Revenue. ( 3. ) AT the outset, we may take note of the fact that the question proposed to be referred to this Court for answer was subject-matter of discussion before their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steel v. Dy. CIT, (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC ). It is in this case, their Lordships examined the entire scheme of Section 115j in the context of Companies Act and in particular examined the scope of Clause (iv) of Explanation appended to Section 115j. Their Lordships then interpreted the word "loss includes depreciation" while computing the book profit of the assessee, whose cases are required to be assessed under Section 115j (since repealed ). Their Lordships answered the reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. ( 4. ) IN our opinion, once the law is settled by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, nothing remains for this Court to decide except to follow the law laid down by the highest Court in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is for this reason we do not wish to burden our judgment by narrating the entire facts having bearing over the question proposed to be referred to this Court for answer. ( 5. It is for this reason we do not wish to burden our judgment by narrating the entire facts having bearing over the question proposed to be referred to this Court for answer. ( 5. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steel (supra) it is not necessary to allow this application and call the question for answer on merits because the same stands already decided by the Supreme Court of India. In other words, it is now no longer a referable question of law for being answered on merits by this Court under Section 256 (1 ). When the whole controversy on the proposed question is decided and settled for all time to come by the order of apex Court, there is neither any referable question that arises for consideration nor any debatable question subsists. As a consequence the consequential orders if required may be passed by the AO in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steel (supra) in this case after affording an opportunity to the assessee. It is with these observations this application is dismissed. No cost.