Judgment:
Pasayat, C.J.
Pursuant to the direction given by this court an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed and the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D for opinion:
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in fixing the valuation of closing stock of sugar at two factories at Rs.338 and Rs. 340 per quintal discarding the method of valuation adopted by the assessee?'
2. For the assessment year 1969-70 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1969, additions were made by the revenue authorities to cover the under-statement of value of closing stock. There were two factories which were categorised as Factory No. 1 and Factory No. 2 by the revenue authorities for the sake of convenience. The Tribunal fixed the value by adopting Rs. 338 rate per quintal. The assessed could not explain before the Tribunal as to why the price of free sale sugar fluctuated to the extent indicated in the figures furnished by the assessee. The dates of such sales were also not specified. It was taken into note that the sales were made only after the end of the relevant accounting year and the sale price of free sale sugar in 1968, i.e., the last date of relevant accounting year was around Rs. 340 per quintal both at Factory-I and Factory-II. There was no dispute regarding the free sale of sugar at Factory No. 2. Though at Factory-I according to the assessed the value of sugar was Rs. 343, according to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as on 30-9-1968 the price was Rs. 338.
3. Coming to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to adopt the market price prevailing on or around 30-9-1968, the Tribunal directed that the value of the closing stock at factory-I should be at the rate of Rs. 338 per quintal against Rs. 343 applied by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner moved an application under section 256(1) which was rejected. Thereafter, this court was moved as indicated above and direction was given.
4. None appears to be present for the assessed in spite of notice for appearance by the learned counsel for the revenue. The value of closing stock has been done by the Tribunal after taking note of various aspects and the conclusions are factually correct.
5. That being the position, no question of law in that regard arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we decline to answer the question.
6. Reference is disposed of accordingly.