ORDER
By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be arising out of IT Appeal No. 821 (Del) of 1992, for the opinion of this court :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the direct cost method of valuation adopted by the assessee and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not require any interference ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that HRA should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40A(5) and section 40(c) ?’
2. The petition pertains to the assessment year 1986-87 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 30-4-1985. At the outset, it is pointed but by the learned counsel for the assessee that reference on a similar question in respect of the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1985-86, has been declined by this court by order dated 5-3-1998 in IT Case No. 52 of 1995 and this order has been accepted by the revenue. Following the said order, we decline to call for reference on the first question.
3. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the issue is whether the house rent allowance granted to an employee, which is exempt under section 10(13A) of the Act, would form part of the salary for the purpose of section 40A(5) of the Act. In the order of the Tribunal we hardly find any discussion on the issue. The Tribunal, while upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), merely relied on its earlier orders. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the basic order of’ the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the issue was for the assessment year 1982-83 but in the appeal to the Tribunal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1982-83, no ground in respect of this issue was raised. Be that as it may, on a conjoint reading of Explanation 2(a) to section 40A(5), section 17(3)(ii) and section 17(3), we are unable to find any fault with the order of the Tribunal declining to make reference on the proposed question on the ground that answer to the question is obvious. Accordingly, we decline to call for reference on the second question as well. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.