JUDGMENT :- Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against an order dated 16th July, 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E’ Bench, Calcutta in ITA No.660 (Cal) of 2000 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 by which the said Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against an order dated 29th March, 2000, passed by CIT, West Bengal-II, Calcutta for the assessment year 1995-96 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18th August, 2003 formulated the following questions of law in this appeal for hearing. “a) Whether in computing the composite income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee CESS payable under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act on green tea leaves is allowable as a business expenditure in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962? b) Whether the condition precedent for the exercise of the owner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act has been satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case?” The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) The Assessing Officer while making assessment for the assessment year 1995-96 under Section 143(3) of the Act allowed Cess paid on green leaf to the Government as business expenditure. b) Subsequently, a proposal under Section 263 of the Act had been sent by the concerned assessing officer to the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that while completing the assessment of the abovementioned year, the assessing officer had allowed Cess no green leaf paid to the Government by the assessing-company as business expenditure by disregarding the fact that the Guwahati High Court, in the case of Jorehaut Group Ltd. vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, reported in 226 ITR 622 (Gau) held that the Cess should be deductible from agricultural income tax proceeding. According to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid allowance of Cess in the income tax proceeding had made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. c) On receipt of such proposal, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and the assessee filed written submission before the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (II) Calcutta. According to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid allowance of Cess in the income tax proceeding had made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. c) On receipt of such proposal, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and the assessee filed written submission before the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (II) Calcutta. d) The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (II), by order dated 29th March, 2002, directed the assessing officer to add back the whole of the ‘Cess’ on green leaf which was allowed as deduction by the assessing officer in the assessment. Being dissatisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal, by the order impugned herein, has dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax invoking his power under Section 263 of the Act. Dr. Pal, the learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended before us that there was no justification of initiating the proceeding under Section 263 of the Act as the condition laid down for invocation of such provision was not reflected in the order under Section 263 of the Act. Dr. Pal contends that the order of the Guwahati High Court, relied upon by the Assessing Officer for giving proposal of reference, was not even followed by subsequent decisions of the said High Court and as such, there was no valid ground exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act. According to Dr. Pal, if the order of the assessing officer was a possible view, there was no justification of reopening the assessment under Section 263 of the Act. Even on merit, Dr. Pal contends that in computing the composite income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee, the Cess payable under Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act on green tea leaf is allowable as business expenditure in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Dr. Pal, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. Mr. Shome, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contention of Dr. Dr. Pal, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. Mr. Shome, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contention of Dr. Pal and has contended that there is no justification of interfering with the order passed in the proceeding under Section 263 of the Act which has been even affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Mr. Shome, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the question, whether the amount of Cess paid by an assessee under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act on green tealeaf is allowable as a “business expenditure” in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of the Income tax Rules, 1962, has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AFT Industries Ltd., reported in 2004 (270) ITR page 167 and it has been held that the amount of Cess so payable is deductible. We, therefore, find that there was no justification of invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for reopening of the assessment on the basis of a proposal given by the assessing officer himself after passing of the order of the assessment on the basis of the precedent of Gauhati High Court which has not been approved by a Division Bench of our High Court. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act which has been affirmed by the Tribunal below and direct the assessing officer to act accordingly. The appeal is, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.