' B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, C.J.---It is brought to our notice that, for the previous assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal itself has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking?"
' This question corresponds to question No,1 raised in this I.T.A. For the assessment year concerned in this I.T.A., however, the Tribunal refused to refer the question on the ground that, for the assessm ent year 1984-85, the Finance Act, 1984, defined the term "industrial company" and since, according to that definition, the petitioner is an industrial company, no reference is called for.
After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that a question of law in terms of question No,1 suggested does arise and ought to be referred. It may also be noticed and it is also the case of the assessee that questions Nos.2 and 3 are merely consequential to question No,1 and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer questions Nos.2 and 3 specifically. It would be sufficient if question No,1 is referred. Accordingly, out of the following three questions asked for, only question No,1 is directed to be stated under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in allowing investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"