RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, has been made at the instance of the CIT for stating the case and referring the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dt. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to follow the procedure adopted in 1974-75 and 1975-76 on the point of deduction of sales contingency provision and then determine the amount to be allowed ?" The question relates to the transfer of amount to the sales contingency provision by the respondent-assessee and deduction thereof from the total computation of income. For the earlier asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Tribunal laid down certain procedure to be adopted and determined the amount to be deducted from the computation of taxable income of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision for the earlier years, the Tribunal has made the same order for the asst. yr. 1978-79. The application under S. 256(1) of the Act for making a reference to this Court of the aforesaid question has been rejected on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order dt. 28th Sept., 1984 vide its order dt. 22nd April, 1985.
(2.) WE are informed by both the learned counsel that for earlier assessment orders in the like circumstances an application under S. 256(2) of the Act was made before this Court, which has since been decided in favour of the Revenue and the Tribunal has been directed to refer the aforesaid question of law to this Court for its opinion. That decision has been rendered by this Court in CIT vs. Instrumentation Ltd. (1987) 62 CTR (Raj) 208 : (1987) 167 ITR 354 (Raj). Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the question suggested by the CIT, Jaipur, to this Court for its opinion. There will be no order as to costs.;