B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. - (1.) WE are not satisfied that any question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal which ought to be referred under s. 256 (2) of the IT Act, 1961.
(2.) THE finding of the Tribunal is that, in the course of manufacture of plastic goods, some goods were damaged and they were not saleable in that state but were sold later after repairing. THE Tribunal has also observed that when they were sold, the income received therefrom was credited to the trading account in those years. But, so far as the year of production is concerned, they were treated as of no value. We see no error of law in the approach of the Tribunal. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.;