S.N. ROTHO, A.M. This appeal has been filed by assessee against order dt. 1st Sept., 1984 of CIT (A) relating asst. yr. 1977-78 previous year of which ended on 28th June, 1976. first seven grounds taken in this appeal state that CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee company was not entitled to relief under s. 80J of Act during year under consideration merely on ground that it had no positive income in new industrial unit NO. II at Barrackpore. assessee is limited company deriving income from manufacture and sale of steel wire. It claimed relief under s. 80J of Act in respect of its Barrackpore unit which called Unit II. ITO calculated some relief under s. 80J and observed that same should be carried forward as said Unit No. II suffered loss during year under consideration. assessee appealed to CIT(A) contending that figure of relief arrived at by ITO was low. CIT(A) considered matter and withdrew relief given by ITO on ground that assessee was not entitled to any relief as new unit did not have any taxable profit. In this matter, he followed his order passed for earlier year. In asst. yr. 1976-77 CIT (A) had given similar decision against which assessee had come up in appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal considered claims of assessee as well as Revenue and decided issue in favour of Revenue by their order dt. 24th March, 1986 in ITA No. 2010 (Cal) /84. Subsequently, assessee had filed miscellaneous application for same assessment year claiming that aforesaid order dt. 24th March, 1986 of Tribunal was erroneous and deserved to be recalled. Tribunal heard assessee as well as Revenue on said miscellaneous application numbered M.A. No. 72 (Cal)/86 and by their order dt. 29th Oct., 1986 rejected application holding that there was no mistake in original order dt. 24th March, 1986 of Tribunal which required rectification. Shri N.K. Poddar, ld. Representative for assessee, urged before us that earlier order of Tribunal was erroneous and required reconsideration. He stated that there was indeed loss even in commercial sense in Unit No. II during year under consideration. However, he pointed out that paragraph 7 of circular No. 5-P dt. 9th Oct., 1967 of CBDT clearly envisaged that relief under s. 80J has to be allowed even in year in which there is loss in new unit. In particular, he read out sentence which says "where there are no profits and gains, or where there is loss deficiency in relation to assessment year is to be taken to be amount calculated at six percent per annum on capital employed in undertaking during relevant previous year". He stated that this circular was not pointed out to Tribunal at time of hearing of appeal for asst. yr. 1976-77 and this fact has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of order dt. 29th Oct., 1986 of Tribunal on miscellaneous application referred to earlier. He argued that in present appeal aforesaid circular has to be considered so that matter has to be differently decided. Again, he relied on following decisions for proposition that assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J even if there is loss during particular year. (i) Addl. CIT vs. Sheetalaya (1979) 117 ITR 658(All) (ii) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 660 (Cal) (iii) CIT vs. Bluemount Ceramics Ltd. (1980) 18 CTR (Mad) 1: (1980) 123 ITR 385 (Mad) (iv) CIT vs. Ennore Foundries Ltd. (1985) 45 CTR (Mad) 321: (1985) 151 ITR 464 (Mad). Next he cited decisions in cases of Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 71: (1972) 82 ITR 913 (SC) and Navnit Lal Javeri (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) in support of proposition that circular issued by CBDT is binding on ITO. He explained that aforesaid four cases did not directly decide matter in way circular had stated but in these four cases deficiency of earlier years in which new unit suffered losses was determined and set off in subsequent year in which assessee had profits. Shri N.K. Poddar urged that aforesaid circular directly supports stand of assessee while aforesaid four cases indirectly do so. Shri S.K. Lahiri, ld. Representative for Department, on other hand, supported order of CIT(A). He stated that Tribunal has considered this issue in earlier year and has given particular interpretation of s. 80J (3) of Act and so present appeal has to be decided in light of same decision, especially because no new fact have come into existence and matter is now before Hon'ble High Court. In this connection, he referred to decision in case of CIT vs. B. Devaraj (1969) 73 ITR 1 (Mad) wherein it is stated that it is proper and desirable for Tribunal not to contradict itself and come to diametrically opposite view later as it would be embarrassing in general. Similarly he pointed to decision in case of CIT vs. L.G. Ramamurthi and Ors. 1977 CTR (Mad) 416: (1977) 110 ITR 453 (Mad) for proposition that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to conclusion entirely contrary to one reached by another Bench of said Tribunal on same facts, because if it is so done, then it will not only shake confidence of public but will also totally destroy such confidence. result of this will be conclusions based on whims and fancies of individuals and would cease to be objective. Regarding circular relied on by Shri N.K. Poddar, he urged that said circular is not binding because it has travelled beyond language of Act as given in s. 80J (3). Tribunal applied its mind and gave particular interpretation relating to s. 80J(3). In such matters of judicial interpretation, he stated that judicial interpretation will override any circular issued by Board. In this connection, be relied on decision in case of A.L.A. Firm (1976)102 ITR 622 (Mad) wherein it has been held that circular of CBDT has no binding force on judicial power of ITO. He also referred to decision in case of State Bank of Travancore (1986) 50 CTR (SC) 290: (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) wherein Supreme Court observed at page 139: "The earlier circular being executive in character cannot alter provision of Act". Shri N.K. Poddar replied that case of State Bank of Travancore was considered by Patna High Court in case of CIT vs. Sriram Agarwal (1986) 54 CTR (Pat) 367: (1986) 161 ITR 302 (Pat) and it was held, after considering decision on case of State Bank of Travancore that considering decision on case of State Bank of Travancore that circular issued by CBDT was binding on ITO. In this connection, he also referred to decision in case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (1981) 22 CTR (Kar) 91: (1981) 132 ITR 461 (Kar) in which similar view has been taken. We have carefully considered contention of both parties as well as facts on record. We have gone through orders dt. 24th March 1986 of Tribunal as well as their order dt. 29th Oct., 1986 on miscellaneous application. We do not find any good reason to differ from conclusion arrived at therein. four cases relied on by ld. counsel for assessee, namely, Sheetalya and Ors. (supra) were not direct authorities in support of interpretation sought to be placed on s. 80J (3) by ld. counsel for assessee. We are inclined to agree with contention of Revenue that paragraph 7 of circular dt. 9th Oct., 1967 has gone beyond jurisdiction of CBDT when it envisages granting of relief under section in Chapter VI of Act even when there is no gross total income of new unit. case of Sriram Agrawal (supra) was concerned with case of penalty and so that decision was given in different context. Similar was case with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (supra) which was dealing with case of revision by CIT. cases of Navanit Lal Javeri (supra) and Ellerman Lines Ltd. (supra) were dealing with different matters. In case before us, Legislature had given concession to assessee on fulfilment of certain conditions under certain specified circumstances. These conditions and circumstances had to be specifically and strictly fulfilled. Otherwise, benefit cannot be given. This is settled principle of law. As has been observed by Tribunal in their order dt. 24th March 1986 there is no reference to case where new unit suffers loss. Consequently, we uphold decisions of CIT(A) on this point and reject these grounds. We find support for this decisions of ours from cases of S. Devaraj (supra) and State Bank of Travancore (supra). Next ground states that computation of relief under s. 80J was low. This ground is consequential to first seven grounds. As we have rejected first seven grounds, this ground does not survive for consideration and so this is rejected. Ground No. 9 relates to assessee's claim for initial depreciation. Ground No. 10 relates to assessee's claim for investment allowance. During previous year under consideration there was change of law inasmuch as investment allowance was made applicable while initial depreciation was withdrawn. assessee claimed investment allowance as per amended law on all additions to machineries. ITO disallowed entire claim on ground that machineries were installed prior to 1st April 1976 and so they were not entitled to investment allowance. assessee appealed to CIT(A) and contended that claim for investment allowance was wrongly disallowed. CIT(A) rejected this contention on ground that assessee did not make any claim before ITO. assessee took additional ground before CIT(A) claiming initial depreciation on those very assets. CIT(A) declined to admit additional ground. We have heard Shri N.K. Poddar who urged that rejection of assessee's claim on both point was not justified. He relied on decisions in case of Madhu Jayanti (1985) 48 CTR (Cal) 151: (1985) 154 ITR 277 (Cal), CIT vs. Gordhandas Jerambhai (1985) 49 CTR (Cal) 7: (1985) 154 ITR 288 (Cal) and CWT vs. Vimlaben vadilal Mehta (1983) 37 CTR (SC) 280: (1984) 145 ITR 11 (SC). We have also heard Shri S.K. Lahiri who supported order of CIT(A). In our opinion, assessee is entitled to succeed on this ground. There was change in law during previous year under consideration. From statements filed before us we find that assessee had given particulars regarding date of acquisition and cost of machineries. We, therefore, vacate order of CIT(A) on this point and restore matter to file of ITO with direction to examine assessee's claim for investment allowance and dispose of same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. In result, appeal may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose. *** HIND WIRE INDUSTIRES LTD v. INCOME TAX OFFICERS