R.V. Raveendran, J.

1. These three references under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) relate to the order of assessment dt. 11th August, 1978, passed in regard to the asst. yr. 1976-77 (year ending 31st December, 1975). Feeling aggrieved by the disallowance of certain expenditure in computing income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business' and disallowance of certain deductions in computing the total income, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), I, Bangalore. The appeal was partly allowed by order dt. 28th February, 1980. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed ITA No. 322/Bang/80 and the Department filed ITA No. 340/Bang/1980. The Tribunal by a common order dt. 31st October, 1981, partly allowed both the appeals. The assessee sought reference of some questions of law in regard to the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 322/Bang/1980 in RA No. 962/Bang/1981. The Department sought reference of some questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 322/Bang/1980 and ITA No. 340/Bang/1980 in RA Nos. 2 and 3/Bang/1980.

2. In pursuance of the said applications, the Tribunal by order dt. 30th November, 1982, has referred the following 12 questions (Questions 1 to 9 at the instance of the Revenue and questions 10 to 12 at the instance of the assessee) for opinion :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case :

"(1) The Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to get higher depreciation on canteen building ?

(2) The Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provision for salary and wages payable for non-utilised leave amounting to Rs. 75,51,000 is an admissible deduction ?

(3) The Tribunal is right in law in holding that expenses incurred in connection with issue of rights shares, constitutes revenue expenditure deductible in computing the business income ?

(4) The Tribunal is right in law in holding that depreciation has to be allowed on increase in the value of assets due to fluctuation in exchange rate ?

(5) The Tribunal was right in upholding the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in entertaining the additional claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under s. 35B on expenses incurred on advertisement and technical literature ?

(6) The Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads, culverts and drainages around the assessee's factory ?

(7) The Tribunal is correct in holding that ground rent, repairs, municipal tax and depreciation in respect of the buildings owned by the assessee and used as residential quarters by an employee, cannot be treated as expenditure resulting in benefit or amenity granted to the employees by the assessee and considered as 'perquisite' for the purposes of s. 40A(5) ?

(8) The Tribunal is right in holding that the depreciation allowance has to be allowed on the pipeline and sanitary fittings treating it as plant and machinery ?

(9) The Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee is entitled for extra shift allowance on the storage tank as the same is part of plant and machinery ?

(10) The Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of initial depreciation under s. 32(1)(vi) of the IT Act ?

(11) The Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable is not a proper deduction in computing the total deduction (sic-income) for Income-tax purposes ?

(12) The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B in respect of insurance premium of Rs. 35,581 paid to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Limited ?"

Though in para 21 of the statement of case, the Tribunal states that 13 questions are referred, it is seen that only 12 questions are referred. Though the reference sought in regard to question referred to in para 9 has been rejected, apparently by oversight the Tribunal has stated in para 21 that the question referred to in para 9 is also referred. This is ignored. Ques