JUDGMENT
1. In this case Sri R.K. Gulati appeared for the assessee who was elevated to the Bench. Notice was issued on 7-1-2003 to the assessee to engage another counsel, but none has appeared and the notice has not returned after delivery. Hence we treat service as sufficient under the Explanation (II) to Chapter 8 rule 12 of the High Court Rules.
1. In this case Sri R.K. Gulati appeared for the assessee who was elevated to the Bench. Notice was issued on 7-1-2003 to the assessee to engage another counsel, but none has appeared and the notice has not returned after delivery. Hence we treat service as sufficient under the Explanation (II) to Chapter 8 rule 12 of the High Court Rules.
2. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion.
2. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion.
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 30,925 on account of the difference between the enhanced and old prices of fertilizer in respect of the stocks as on 31-5-1974 during the previous year did not accrue to the assessee in this year and, therefore, could not be treated as its income for the assessment year 1976-77 ?
The facts are covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath (1988) 171 ITR 417 (All).
3. Following the aforesaid decision the question referred is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.
3. Following the aforesaid decision the question referred is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.