In ground No. 1(a) of appeal filed by assessee, objection is taken to assessment of income of Rs. 22,813 which, according to ITO and CIT(A) was assessable as revenue receipt of assessee in Asstt. yr. 1981-82. It is contended by Shri S. L. Batra, ld. authorised counsel of assessee, that amount of Rs., 22,813 was merely advance which had been received in respect of hire purchase agreements which had not been concluded in accounting year of assessment year under appeal. According to him, amount of Rs. 22,813 was merely deposit and that it was converted into revenue receipt only in asst. yr. 1982-83 when it had been duly offered for assessment. On other hand, Shri Gujjarmal, ld. Departmental Representative, has submitted that receipt of Rs. 22,813 was incidental to business carried on by assessee and that since accrual as well as receipt of income had fallen in asst. yr. 1981-82, it had been rightly assessed by ITO and CIT(A) as income of assessee appellant for asst. yr. 1981-82. We have considered reveal submission. From facts which are stated in Paragraph 8 of impugned appellate order, it is quite clear that sum of Rs. 22,813 had been received by assessee appellant company in respect of hire purchase transactions which had not been concluded during accounting period of asst. yr. 1981-82. That being so, assessee did not have any enforceable rights over that receipt and which could not be treated as part of its income. It was only in year in which hire purchase transaction/ agreements were concluded that advance of Rs. 22,813 could be said to have materialised into receipt of income nature. Since it is case of limited company which bears tax on uniform rate year after year and since as stated at Bar by ld. authorised counsel for assessee, receipt had already been included and taxed as income of asst. yr. 1982-83, no useful purpose would be served if Department contends that amount of Rs. 22,813 should be assessed in asst. yr. 1981-82. For above mentioned reasons, we would hold that sum of Rs. 22,813 received by assessee company in asst. yr. 1981-82 was merely deposit or money held in trust by way of advance and should not be treated as income in that assessment year. Ground No. 1(a) in assessee s appeal shall therefore, stand allowed. Ground No. 1(b) and ground No. 2 have not been pressed by ld. authorised counsel of assessee. In conclusion, appeal filed by assessee is allowed in part. *** MICO FINANCIERS & ENGINEERS (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER