1. By this petition u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, in respect of the assessment year 1985-86, for the opinion of this court :

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses of Rs. 31,56,117 spent by the assessed on repairs and replacements of central air conditioning plant were of revenue nature

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a deduction of Rs. 9,07,358 was allowable to the assessed u/s 32A on fire-fighting equipments "

2. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-company had claimed Rs. 31,56,117 as repairs and replacement of central air conditioning plant and insulated chilled water piping re-routing. Rejecting the stand of the assessed that the said expenses were incurred on current repairs to maintain and preserve an already existing asset, the Assessing Officer held that the assessed had renewed or replaced a substantial part of the existing plant whereby it got a benefit of enduring nature. He accordingly directed that the said amount shall be capitalised, on which depreciation will be allowed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessed had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 2,01,839 on the cost of fire-fighting equipment. Holding that the fire-fighting equipment was not integral part of plant and machinery directly connected with the publication or other business activities carried on by the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the said claim. The assessors appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was unsuccessful.

3. The assessed carried the matter further in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the expenditure of Rs. 31,56,117 was incurred by the assessed to preserve and maintain an already existing plant, i.e., air conditioning plant and no new asset was brought into existence. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the entire said expenditure as revenue expenditure. In so far as the claim of investment allowance on fire-fighting equipment was concerned, the Tribunal found that the fire-fighting equipment was in the industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of the assessee, which is printing and publishing of newspapers and magazines and, Therefore, the requirement u/s 32A was satisfied. Accordingly, it allowed the said claim made by the assessee.

4. It is with reference to this order, the above questions have been proposed for reference.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal being based on the appreciation of facts, it does not give rise to the proposed questions.

6. As noticed above while allowing the expenditure incurred by the asses-see on the air-conditioning plant the Tribunal has found as a fact that the said expenditure was incurred to preserve and maintain an already existing plant. This is a pure finding of fact and the same having not been challenged by the Revenue, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal holding the said expenditure to be revenue in nature. Similarly, while allowing the claim of the assessed for investment allowance on the cost of fire-fighting equipment, the Tribunal has held that the said equipment formed part of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of the assessed of printing and publishing of newspapers and magazines. Again, this finding is not challenged as perverse or unreasonable in the proposed question No. 2. That being so, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the assessed is entitled to investment allowance on the said equipment.

7. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The application is accordingly dismissed.