Judgment :- (Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, ‘B’ Bench in I.T.A. Nos.3190 and 3191 (Mds) / 92 dated 06.02.2003, for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1989-90.) P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. The present appeals are filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the Order dated 06.02.2003 in I.T.A.Nos.3190 and 3191 (Mds)/92 dated 06.02.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench raising the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notice under Section 147 to reopen the assessment cannot be sent after a notice under Section 154 for rectification was issued to the assessee? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on relocation of plant and machinery is allowable as revenue expenditure? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the expenditure incurred on levelling of ground for storage of water as revenue expenditure? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding expenditure on R&D unit was not to be treated as incurred for Sholinganallur Unit for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80HH and 80I? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excise duty and sales tax has to be excluded from the turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80HH?” 2. We take up the Question Nos.2 to 5 first, which deals with the merits of the case. The facts relating to Question No.2 are as under:- The assessee had readjusted its plant and machinery within the same factory shed for better productivity and claimed that the payment is allowed as a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer held that this is an expenditure which has an advantage of enduring nature to the assessee. Therefore, he disallowed this expenditure as of capital expenditure. On appeal, the C.I.T. (A) held that it was a revenue expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the C.I.T. (A), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessing Officer held that this is an expenditure which has an advantage of enduring nature to the assessee. Therefore, he disallowed this expenditure as of capital expenditure. On appeal, the C.I.T. (A) held that it was a revenue expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the C.I.T. (A), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the C.I.T. (A) and dismissed the Revenue Appeal. The existing assets were moved from its original place to another place within the factory and therefore this could not bring into existence any new asset, but only facilitate the existing assets work properly. In our opinion, the assessee by moving its plant within the factory to a location so that the plant could work better resulting in better output, is only providing better facilities for manufacture. In view of the above reasoning, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed and does not require interference. 3. The facts relating to Question No.3 are as under:- The assessee claims that the expenditure incurred on levelling of ground for storage of water is a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer held that it is a capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal to the C.I.T. (A). The C.I.T. (A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that it is only a revenue expenditure. The counsel for the Revenue submitted that levelling of the ground and the ultimate benefit the assessee would get by storing water and avoidance of incurring any expenditure on purchase of water are benefits that the assessee acquired of enduring nature. We heard the arguments. We are of the view that it is an undisputed fact that the water that would have otherwise flowed off, got accumulated and the assessee moved the land from one side to another in such a manner that it would create some kind of enclosure so that water would flow to the basement. Levelling of the adjoining areas was only incidental. The expenditure for moving of land and sand from one area to another that would help the assessee as it had helped, for storing water, is only revenue in nature. Levelling of the adjoining areas was only incidental. The expenditure for moving of land and sand from one area to another that would help the assessee as it had helped, for storing water, is only revenue in nature. We are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any interference. 4. The facts in respect of Question No.4 is as under:- This issue relates to wrong working of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I, due to expenses on research and development. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the expenditure on R&D Unit was treated as incurred for Sholinganallur Unit for the purpose of computing the deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I. On appeal, the C.I.T. (A) upheld the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a specific finding as there being no dispute that separate books of account were maintained and further that the Revenue had not been able to show that there was no connection between R&D Unit and Sholinganallur Unit. In view of the above factual finding, the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and requires no interference. 5. In respect of Question No.5, the issue is covered by this Court Judgment reported in 275 ITR 319 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Wheels India Limited and Another. The order of the Tribunal is confirmed and does not require interference. 6. In view of the foregoing conclusions, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal and hence no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in respect of Question Nos.2 to 5. When we have dismissed the case on merits it is a futile exercise to refer the Question No.1, which is academic in nature. We see no substantial questions of law arising for our consideration. The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.