Judgment 1. The following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal) arising out of order passed in ITA No. 977 of 1985 on 12th March, 1987, for the asst. yr. 1982-83: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation @ 20 per cent on electric installations in the fully fashioned unit ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra shift allowance on oil tanks in Vanaspati units and storage tank and cooling tower in refinery units ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of law/rules in this behalf, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation @ 20 per cent on generator and electric transformers ? 4. 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 purposes of investment allowance and deduction under Section 80J with respect thereto ? 5. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of law/rules, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing investment allowance on electric installations such as humidifiers in wool combers unit ? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing assessees claim for Rs. 6,40,621 on account of leave with wages ? 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. As regards, question No. 1 is concerned, a finding of fact has been recorded that the electric installations in the fully fashioned unit are integral part of the machinery and cannot be separated from it. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to controvert or dispute the findings of fact which are recorded by the Tribunal. In view of facts found by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders whereby depreciation has been allowed to the assessee treating the electric installations in the fully fashioned unit as part of the machinery. 4. In view of facts found by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders whereby depreciation has been allowed to the assessee treating the electric installations in the fully fashioned unit as part of the machinery. 4. As far as second question is concerned, the following findings have been recorded by the Tribunal while dealing with the issue: 10. After hearing both the parties we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A). All the three items which are oil tanks in Vanaspati unit and storage tank and cooling tower in refinery unit cannot be regarded anything than part of plant. In all fairness, the learned senior Departmental Representative could not point out any specific head in the Appendix to IT Rules providing different rate of depreciation or any restrictions to extra shift allowance on this part of the machinery. Once it is established that these are part and parcel of the machinery and there is no specific bar under the IT Rules for allowance of extra shift allowance, not to be negated and was rightly admitted by CIT(A). A perusal of the above shows that even the senior Departmental Representative who, appeared before the Tribunal did not dispute that there is any restriction on the grant of extra shift allowance on oil tanks in Vanaspati units, storage tank, cooling tower in refinery units. Moreover, the same have also been treated to be integral part of plant. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to show anything to draw an inference that the above findings are incorrect. In fact no question has been claimed as perversity of the findings. 5 In view of our above discussion, we find that question of law referred to above is liable to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. As far as question No. 3 is concerned, the claim of the assessee was allowed relying upon the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the assessee for the year 1981-82, as is evident from the questions of law referred to this Court for its opinion at the instance of the Revenue for the year 1981-82 (in IT Ret No. 56 of 1988) since reported as CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2006) 206 CTR (P&H) 137--Ed. the question referred to above, has not been claimed. the question referred to above, has not been claimed. It seems that the Revenue had accepted the findings on this issue. This being the position, following the principles of law laid down by Hon ble the Supreme Court of India in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT , we hold that the Revenue is not entitled to raise this issue in the year in question, as no valid cause has been pleaded for the purpose. No other details were furnished by the counsel for the Revenue to show that the question referred to above was challenged by the Revenue in any subsequent proceedings after the same was decided against the Revenue by the Tribunal. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to a judgment in CIT v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (2001) 257 ITR 779 (P&H) to state that the generator has been held to be an integral part of plant and machinery and on the same principle even the electric transformers would fall in the same category as without the use of both these, it is impossible to run the plant. However, in view of our findings recorded above, we need not opine on this and answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. As far as question No. 4 is concerned, the counsel for the parties are agreed that the question referred to above has already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2002) 175 CTR (P&H) 184 : (2002) 257 ITR 737 (P&H), following the same we answer this question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. As regards question No. 5 is concerned, it is covered by a judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Starlight Silk Mills (P) Ltd. taking a view that AC plants, electric installation and transformers form integral part of plant and machinery, hence investment allowance is available on the same. No contrary view has been shown by learned Counsel for the Revenue. Keeping in view findings of fact recorded by CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal to the effect that humidifiers in wool combers are part of plant and following the judgment referred to above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. No contrary view has been shown by learned Counsel for the Revenue. Keeping in view findings of fact recorded by CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal to the effect that humidifiers in wool combers are part of plant and following the judgment referred to above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. As regards question No. 6 is concerned, it is covered by a judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court of India in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT , which was followed even in assessees own case in CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. No contrary view has been shown on behalf of the Revenue. Accordingly, following the said judgment, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.