Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of commission agent for handloom cloth at Maunnath Bhanjan, in the District of Azamgarh. It claimed that its customers came to Maunnath Bhanjan from various parts of the country to make purchases through it. The assessee had to provide them with meals when they stayed at Maunnath Bhanjan. The expenditure incurred by way of entertainment of serving tea, pan, etc., was claimed as an allowable expenditure. The ITO, however, repelled it in view of s. 37(2) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year in question, namely, 1973-74. On appeal, the assessee's claim was accepted. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC. The Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 13,591 incurred by the assessee comes within the mischief of Section 37(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'
2. In Brij Raman Dass & Sons v. CIT : 104ITR541(All) , this court has held that expenditure in providing refreshments to customers was an entertainment expenditure and hence not allowable. Further, in CIT v. Manoo Ram Ram Karan Dass [I.T.R. No 192 of 1976, decided on 2nd May, 1978--since reported in : 116ITR606(All) ] this court further held that expenditure incurred in serving meals, etc., to customers was equally an entertainment expenditure. These decisions are binding on us.
3. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on a decision of the GujaratHigh Court in CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. : 106ITR424(Guj) and alsoa decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s. Devi Singh Bhandu Mal v.ITO  Taxation 31 237. The decision of the Gujarat HighCourt was referred to by the Bench which decided in CIT v. Manoo RamRam Kctran Dass [I.T.R. No. 192 of 1976--since reported in : 116ITR606(All) ]. It also referred to the Full Bench decision in Brij RamanDass' case : 104ITR541(All) . We have heard learned counsel for theassessee. We are, however, not inclined to differ from the opinion expressed by this court in previous decisions.
4. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.