The High Court does not have the power to rectify, modify or review its answer to a reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if there is an error in the answer.

N.C. Sharma, J.-This order will dispose of three D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 332 of 1988, 331 of 1988 and 329 of 1988 filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a common order as all these three applications involve a common question of law

2. M/s. Globe Transport Corporation carried on a business of transportation. With respect to the previous year ending Deepawali Samvat 2032 relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, it filed return of its income disclosing an income of Rs. 94,660. The Income-tax Officer, ‘B’ Ward, Jaipur, passed an assessment order on February 19, 1979. The assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 19,485.28 under the head “Expenses” in its profit and loss account. The account showed that these expenses had been incurred on tea, betel, cigarettes, etc. The Income-tax Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 15,000 on estimate treating it as expenses on entertainment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jaipur, by his order dated June 18, 1979, reduced the additions made by the Income-tax Officer on account of entertainment expenditure to Rs. 10,000 from Rs. 15,000. The assessee filed a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and before the Tribunal, it was contended on its behalf that the expenditure in question was incurred in providing tea, cigarettes, pan, etc., to drivers, agents, customers and employees and that these expenses were customary and incidental to the business. The Tribunal held that these expenses were incurred in providing drinks, tea, coca cola, etc., to the constituents, customers and employees of the assessee and that they were incidental to the business. It was held by the Tribunal that such expenditure cannot be said to be in the nature of entertainment. On an application being made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by its order dated July 1, 1981, referred the following question of law to this Court:-“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses of Rs. 10,000 are not in the nature of entertainment expenditure?“

3. M/s. Shambhu Dayal Ram Pal was a partnership firm carrying on a business at Chomu in sugar, jaggery, khand and arat. In relation to the accounting period ending Deepawali relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, it declared an income of Rs. 85,234 in its return. The case of the assessee was that the up country constituents visited its business premises and that it was customary for the assessee to provide food, tea, cool drinks, snacks, etc., to them. The assessee claimed a total expenditure of Rs. 14,950 as expenses incurred

on these items for its constituents. The Income-tax Officer, J-Ward, Jaipur, by his order dated October 31, 1979, disallowed a sum to Rs. 9,900 in terms of Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act as, in his opinion, such expenditure was in the nature of entertainment. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, ‘13’ Range, Jaipur, by his order dated March 21, 1980, held that these expenses were customary in nature in the assessee’ s line of business and did not constitute entertainment expenses within the meaning of Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, allowed the deduction of the amount of Rs. 9,900 from the assessee’s income. On appeal by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by its order dated March 26, 1981 upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On an application being moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by its order dated March 3, 1982, referred the following question of law to this Court:-“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses of Rs. 9,900 incurred on providing food, tea, coffee, etc., to the assessee’s constituents are