Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) The question referred to us in this reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is a company. It maintains accounts on the mercantile system. It appears that during the relevant accounting year, the assessee-company on August 14, 1968, entered into an agreement with M/s. India Jute Co. Ltd. for purchasing 2,70,000, yards of D.W. Tarpaulin cloth of specific size, packed in specific manner, deliverable between October, 1968, to June, 1969. Messrs India Jute Co. Ltd. failed to supply the aforesaid goods. The assessee-company sent a bill for damages for non-supply of goods amounting to Rs. 59,194. Messrs India Jute Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim. The assessee-company then filed Suit No. 4117 of 1969 in the Calcutta High Court on December 10, 1969. The suit is still pending. The assessee claimed that this amount of Rs. 59,194 was not assessable as income because it had not been realised in the relevant assessment year nor was there any chance for the success of the claim. The Income-tax Officer, however, repudiated this Submission and added back this amount as income. The matter was taken up in appeal but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition. Before him, it was Submitted on behalf of the assessee that the agreement between the parties was not in accordance with the Transferable Specific Delivery Rules of East India Jute & Hessian Exchange Ltd. and in view of the Supreme Court decision in Megna Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd., the contract was void and unenforceable and hence it cannot be said that any income had accrued. This plea was repelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the following view: " The contract was entered into through a recognised broker, M/s. Singhania Commercial Company. While making the claim for the difference, the appellant company must have been in the bona fide belief that the claim would be honoured by M/s. India Jute Co. Ltd. and at that point of time, there was no legal dispute about the receivability of the difference. The appellant company should, therefore, have credited the profit and loss account with the difference receivable amounting to Rs. 59,194. The Subsequent fate of this claim could be brought into the account books by way of claim of loss if the appellant company ultimately would lose in the law courts."
(2.) The assessee then took the matter to the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee and deleted this add back. It held that prima facie the implication of the decision of the Supreme Court in Megna Mills' case, is that the assessee's contract dated August 14, 1968, with M/s. India Jute Co. Ltd. was not enforceable. However, since the matter was Sub judice before the High Court, they did not go into the merits of this aspect. It held that a mere claim does not give rise to accrual of income in the absence of any provision for damage or compensation in the contract. It was held that there was no such provision in the contract between the parties. Hence, this amount was not liable to be added back.
(3.) At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has Submitted this statement of the case and has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 59,194 did not accrue to the assessee by way of income during the relevant previous year for inclusion in the assessment for the assessment year 1970-71 ? ";