- (1.) THE Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for opinion to this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Nirgam Mulya paid by the assessee was part of the bid money and therefore, was beyond the purview of s. 44AC of the IT Act, 1961 -
(2.) THE present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1991 -92.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : "The respondent assessee is a liquor contractor and its taxable income was computed at Rs. 71,31,760 by invoking the provisions of s. 44AC(1)(a) of the Act by applying a rate of 40 per cent on an amount of Rs. 1,78,29,411 which, inter alia, included 'Nirgam Mulya' amounting to Rs. 1,25,25,804. In the course of assessment proceedings, the respondent assessee contended that 'Nirgam Mulya' represented issue price forming part of bid money and it could not come within the ambit of purchase price as contemplated under s. 44AC of the Act. It has been further contended that as per license fee and issue price. Lastly, the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Allahabad in the case of Naresh form a part of purchase price for the purpose of s. 44AC of the Act. However, keeping in view the Explanation inserted in purpose of s. 44AC of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal fairly relying on its earlier decision in Naresh Babu Suresh was part of the bid money and therefore, was beyond the purview of s. 44AC of the Act." We have heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent assessee.;