the assessee then appealed to the tribunal which allowed it and made the following observation the income tax officer was of the opinion that since the assessee was adopting a mercantile basis and had according to his own claim companysidered that a sum of rs.
16 14 6 per maund and claimed a sum of rs.
the assessee entered into a companytract for the forward sale of certain quantity of mustard on february 5 1952 at rs.
16 14 6 per maund the assessee would presume that the purchaser had accepted a settlement at that rate.
27 8 0 per maund.
on february 28 1952 the assessee sent a telegram to the purchaser that if the purchaser did number inform it within four hours that it accepted a settlement of the companytract at rs.
the price fell soon thereafter and the purchaser purported to cancel the companytract before the due date which was june 7 1952 but the assessee refused to accept the cancellation.
94253 was due to the assessee from the other companytracting party the aforementioned sum had necessarily to be treated as the assessees income of the relevant year of account.
the income tax officer held that the pendency of the appeal and the dispute between the assessee and its purchaser did number prevent the income from having accrued.
the claim number having been companyplied with the assessee on april 81952filed a suit againsd the purchaser for the recovery of that amount which was decreed by the trial companyrt and at the date of the assessment order an appeal from that decision was panding in the high companyrt of punjab .
75000 unless the suit is decided the exact amount of profit cannumber be determined and the liability admitted by the companypany.
74253 on the basis of this settlement against the purchaser after giving it credit for rs.
109072 the assessee has filed a suit for rs.
the assessee thereupon proceeded on the basis that the purchase had been settled between the parties at the rate of rs.
the assessee appealed to the appellate assistant companymissioner but the appeal failed.
it is number till the assessee becomes indisputably entitled to the sum of rs.
it is number in dispute that the account of the assessee was kept on the mercantile basis.
20000 due to it on anumberher account.
in its return for the relevant assessment year the assessee appended the following numbere according to the assessee there is a profit of rs.
the liability of the other companytracting party to the assessee is yet under dispute.
he held that what was relevant was whether the transaction had been settled or number and that the assessee number only did number deny that the transaction had been settled but in fact went to the companyrt on the basis of such a settlement.
by the words the companypany was meant the purchaser.
the purchaser never sent any reply to this telegram.
the facts are few.
