JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-This tax case (appeal) is filed by assessee as against order dated July 14, 2006, made in I. T. A. No. 1927 of 2002 on file of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench for assessment year 1997- 98. assessment in this case relates to assessment year 1997-98. In respect of assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, Tax Case (Appeals) Nos. 1534 and 1535 of 2008 have been filed before this court and same were allowed by this court on interpretation of sub-section (1) of section 145 of Income-tax Act, 1961. For subsequent assessment years, viz., 1999- 2000 to 2002-03, 2003-2004 and 2004-05, batch of tax case appeals have been filed before this court in T. C. (A.) Nos. 237 of 2010 batch and this court following decision of this court in case of CIT v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. reported in [2012] 82 CCH 287, allowed appeals answering following substantial questions of law in favour of assessee: "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that hire purchase finance charges should be assessable to tax on sum of digits basis as against equated monthly instalments basis regularly followed by Appellant? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that interest income accrued only in sum of digits method and form part of mercantile system of accounting? 3. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that appellant is not entitled to maintain its book on sum of digits method and offer income on equated monthly instalment basis? " In present case, questions that were framed by this court are as follows: "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that hire purchase finance charges should be assessable to tax on sum of digits basis as against equated monthly instalments basis regularly followed by appellant? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest income accrued only in sum of digits method and form part of mercantile system of accounting? 3. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that appellant is not entitled to maintain its books on sum of digits method and offer income on equated monthly instalment basis? " facts in this case are not in dispute. whole case revolves around hire purchase agreement entered into between appellant and purchasers in respect of purchase of vehicle on hire purchase basis and to make payment in equated monthly instalments (EMI method). While computing income for purpose of computation of tax, appellant-assessee followed equated monthly instalment method whereas assessee maintained books of account on sum of digits method. While completing assessment, Assessing Officer was of view that it was not permissible for assessee to compute its income using one method in its day-to-day accounts and to use another method for computing income chargeable to tax. In so holding, Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee and brought to tax differential amount under sum of digits method. Aggrieved by said order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by following decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in case of CIT v. Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd. reported in [1998] 65 ITD 17 (Hyderabad) dismissed appeal, thereby upheld assessment. As against said order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), assessee once again pursued matter before Tribunal, which dismissed appeal filed by assessee holding as follows: "14. hirers are paying interest on reducing capital balance basis. assessee has not maintained books of account on EMI basis and, therefore, same cannot be considered as income earned as per books of account of assessee. As discussed earlier in case before us Assessing Officer has given clear cut finding that assessee has maintained books of account under sum of digits method. Therefore, facts of case are identical to facts of case in case of Nagarjuna Investments Trust Ltd. Income has accrued to assessee as per contracts entered into between parties. Therefore, income will be assessable to tax on sum of digits basis. Since decision of Special Bench is binding on all Divisional Benches of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal all over country, we have to follow decision of Special Bench and not by Divisional Bench in case of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., dated February 28, 2006. Respectfully following order of Special Bench, we hold that learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming stand taken by Assessing Officer." Aggrieved by said order of Tribunal, assessee is before this court. Learned counsel appearing for assessee submitted that issue involved in this case is covered by decision of this court in case of CIT v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. [2012] 210 Taxman 95 (Mad), wherein in identical facts of case, issue was answered in favour of assessee. He also pointed out that in respect of very same assessee for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000 to 2002-03, 2003-2004 and 2004-05, this court allowed appeals. Learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue vehemently contended by placing heavy reliance on view of Assessing Officer and pointed out that for purpose of maintaining books of account, assessee is following SOD method, whereas only for purpose of filing return, assessee had followed EMI method, for which no explanation has been given by assessee. She further submitted that assessee could not adopt different methods of accounting one for purpose of maintaining books of account and other for purpose of filing return of income. Once assessee is following one system of accounting, it is not permissible for assessee to follow another system of accounting for purpose of filing return of income. She further submitted that by virtue of EMI method, actual income on interest component did not suffer tax and, therefore, such method should not be allowed to be adopted. Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant-assessee and learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and perused materials placed before this court. In case of CIT v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. [2012] 210 Taxman 95 (Mad), identical questions have been raised, which are as follows: "1. Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is justified in following equated monthly instalment method to account finance charges for income-tax purposes only? 2. Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is justified in following sum of digits method to account finance charges to arrive at balance sheet and profit and loss statements only?" In that case also, hire purchase agreement was entered into in respect of purchase of vehicles on hire purchase basis. While returning income, assessee followed equated monthly instalment method as against sum of digits method for purpose of arriving at balance-sheet and profit and loss statement. assessee laid emphasis on hire purchase agreement. In that case, Tribunal considering nature of transaction held that it was not loan transaction but hire purchase agreement and also taking note of consistent method adopted for purpose of tax, namely, EMI method, accepted assessee's plea, which is set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of order, which Revenue did not challenge. said portion reads as follows: "8. Before Tribunal, assessee took definite plea that nature of transaction entered into by assessee was pure and simple, hire purchase and leasing. assessee admitted that in books of account, it adopted SOD method, however, for purpose of income-tax, assessee adopted EMI method for income recognition in respect of finance charges and hire purchase agreement. Tribunal considered contention of assessee in terms of hire purchase agreement and ultimately came to conclusion that question, as to whether income by way of finance charges under hire purchase agreement entered into by assessee with its hirers had accrued under SOD method as per books or under EMI method as per agreement, has to be seen in background of nature of transaction conducted by assessee. Thus, referring to various clauses in agreement, ultimately, Tribunal came to conclusion that assessee had not given any loan or money for purchase of vehicle in question. Thus, transaction was not loan transaction but only hire purchase agreement. 9. It is admitted fact that Revenue did not challenge this finding of fact before this court for purpose of considering as to which method should be taken in correct method for purpose of arriving at real income of assessee." In present case also, we find that factually there is no dispute that entire transaction is hire purchase transaction and not loan transaction and same methodology is adopted. In case of CIT v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. [2012] 210 Taxman 95 (Mad), on fact, finding has been arrived at paragraph 17 which may be relevant for purpose of deciding this case, which reads as follows: "17. perusal of order of Tribunal clearly showed that nature of business transaction conducted by assessee was one of hire purchase giving vehicles on hire purchase and assessee had not given any finance or loan for purchase of vehicle. terms of agreement thus clearly point out that hire purchaser shall not have any proprietary right or title until he exercised, in writing, his option to purchase, as provided in agreement by payment of whole amount due under agreement or in term thereof. reading of agreement shows that principal and finance charges for entire period of contract had been shown separately in schedule attached to agreement. total amount of hire purchase charges, namely, principal and finance charges, were divided equally by number of instalments specified in contract. Thus method employed for arriving monthly instalment is EMI method and right of assessee to receive hire purchase charges on various due dates are as per schedule mentioned in agreement. 18.... Therefore, given fact that character of transaction was pure and simple hire purchase agreement and that transaction had not in any manner undergone any change from one which was subject matter of consideration by Tribunal for earlier years, in respect of which, reference application filed by Revenue was dismissed, Tribunal came to conclusion that Assessing Officer had committed serious error in ignoring EMI method, to adopt SOD method. 19. We are in agreement with reasoning of Tribunal in this regard that when once Revenue had accepted character of transaction as hire purchase transaction, income that flows from transaction has to necessarily follow treatment that is given under hire purchase agreement. Secondly, when Revenue had not disputed fact that on all earlier years, Revenue had treated income as per hire purchase agreement on EMI basis, there are no materials available as on record to show that following such method had really resulted in suppression of income, in other words, there was no true reflection of income that has to be assessed under Act." This court came to conclusion that EMI method followed by assessee for purpose of tax did not show any suppression of income. This decision of this court has not been challenged by Revenue. On contrary, same has been followed by this court in respect of very same assessee for subsequent assessment years, which we have already extracted supra. Since fact in these decided cases, which we quoted above, are squarely applicable to facts of present case and question of law has been answered in favour of assessee in batch of cases in respect of very same assessee, we have no hesitation to hold that in absence of anything to contrary, assessee's plea that tax should be determined on basis of EMI method has to be accepted. finding of Tribunal on this score, therefore, deserves to be reversed. Accordingly, we answer questions of law in favour of assessee and against Revenue. It will be relevant to refer to decision of Court of Appeal in case of B. S. C. Footwear Ltd. v. Ridgway (Inspector of Taxes) [1970] 77 ITR 857, 860 wherein it has been propounded as follows (page 181 of 227 ITR): "Russell L. J., while rejecting argument based on well-settled accountancy practice, pointed out that income-tax law does not march step by step in divergent footprints of accountancy profession.... (See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC))." In result, this tax case (appeal) stands allowed. No costs. *** Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax