ORDER
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.
By this reference under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, as the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the revenue.
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee fulfils the conditions for exemption under sections 11 and 13?”
The following questions are referred to this court for opinion at the instance of assessee :
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption in terms of article 289 of the Constitution of India?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee is not exempt under section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot get the benefit of section 63 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the facts and circumstances of this case are exactly identical to the facts and circumstances of the case decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Dev. Corpn. v. CIT(1998) 13 CC (Reports) 346 (SC) : (1997) 227 ITR 414 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation was entitled to exemption under section 10(20)(A) of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the parties therefore submit that following the above decision of the Supreme Court question No. 2 should be answered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly we answer the question No. 2 referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the above the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he would not like to press question Nos. 1 and 3 referred at the instance of the assessee. These two questions are, therefore, returned unanswered.
3. Mr. Sathe, learned counsel for the revenue also submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court the question referred at the instance of the revenue has become academic. In view of the above the question referred at the instance of the Revenue is returned unanswered.
4. This reference is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.