JUDGMENT
Thanikkachalam, J.
1. In this tax case petition, the Department requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :
“Whether the Tribunal erred in not holding that the bank guarantee commission paid by the assessee in the instant case formed part of the cost of the relevant capital assets in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT that all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and put them in working condition will form part of the cost of the asset and, therefore, the guarantee commission is a capital expenditure and not deductible ?”
2. In view of the fact that as against the decision of this Court rendered in the Sivakami Mills Ltd. vs. CIT , special leave has been granted by the Supreme Court, as can be seen from (1983) 143 ITR (St) 69, we direct the Tribunal to refer the abovesaid question of law, for the opinion of this Court, along with the statement of the facts of the case. Accordingly, the tax case petition is ordered.