ORDER In spite of notice issued to the assessee that his counsel has been elevated to the Bench, none entered appearance, therefore, we decide the case after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri A. Mahajan.
2. The following question has been referred to for our opinion :
2. The following question has been referred to for our opinion :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs. 81.603 from the total income of the assessee?"
The question referred to herein is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in K.C.P. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 421 wherein it has been held that if a receipt is a trading receipt the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as a trading receipt. It is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered in the account books which is decisive. Eventually if the amount so collected is passed on to the State Government or refunded to the purchasers, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction of the sum when so paid or refunded.
3. Thus, in view of the above, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue department and against the assessee.
3. Thus, in view of the above, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue department and against the assessee.