Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the orders of the Tribunal with a delay of 206 days. We have heard Advocate Sri. P. Balakrishnan, appearing for the assessee. 2. At the time of hearing the petition for condonation of delay, we considered the case on merit as well. The first issue raised is: is expenditure claimed for Rights-issue incurred in the previous year relevant for assessment year, but did not result in actual Rights-issue. According to the assessee, since minimum subscription was not received proposal was given up. Assessee’s case is that it is an abortive capital expenditure which should be allowed as revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in – Brooke Bond Ltd v. CIT – 225 ITR 798) rejected the claim. We do not think, the question can further arise for decision by the High Court when it is decided by the Tribunal based on law settled by the decision of the Supreme Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the case. 3. Second question raised is regarding the claim of gratuity, which is a liability of immediate preceding year. The Tribunal, after examining the matter, disallowed the claim under Section 40A(7)(a) of the I.T. Act holding that liability is not allowable if it is not paid in the previous year. Here again, the Tribunal rejected the claim following the principles laid down in Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 185 (SC). We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal as well as in the delay condonation petition. Accordingly, both delay condonation petition and appeal are dismissed.