B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) We have heard counsel for Revenue. The assessee is not represented.
(2.) The question referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1901, reads thus : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,057 being part of the sale price of fertilizer kept by the assessee with itself ?" The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year concerned is 1975-76. During the relevant previous year, sale price of fertilizers was increased by the Central Government. However, the U. P. Government issued a clarification that the enhanced price does not apply to existing stock. The district authorities, accordingly, called upon the assessee to deposit the excess amount realised in a post office in the name of the District Magistrate. However, out of the total excess amount of Rs. 22,057, the assessee deposited only a sum of Rs. 7,000 in the account and kept the remaining amount of Rs. 15,057 with itself. The Income-tax Officer assessed the total amount of Rs. 22,057 as the income of the assessee of the previous year which was challenged by the assessee by way of appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal in part. He excluded the amount of Rs. 7,000 which was deposited in the savings bank account in the name of the District Magistrate, but directed that the amount of Rs. 15,057 should be included in the assessee's income,
(3.) On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the amount of Rs. 15,057 relying on its own order in I. T. A. No. 2126 of 1975-76 (Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath, Sultanpur). Thereupon, the Department obtained this reference pointing out the factual distinction between both the cases.;