JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by G. S. Sandhawalia J.-The present appeal has been filed by assessee under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against order dated November 8, 2012 (annexure A. 4) passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 70 (Asr)/2011 for assessment year 2002-03. appellant sought to raise following substantial question of law for consideration of this court: "(i) Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that transport subsidy amounting to Rs. 16,11,477 which was never received by assessee and for which merely claim was lodged with Jammu and Kashmir Government could be treated as income accrued and taxed in hands of assessee?" Learned senior counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that abovesaid amount was never received by assessee and, therefore, it could not be treated as income in hands of assessee and placed reliance upon Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme") circulated by Jammu and Kashmir Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") to submit that freight charges for movement was to be determined on basis of transport rates fixed by authorities from time to time or actual freight paid, whichever is less. Relevant clause of Scheme reads as under: "6. Details of Scheme.-(i) transport subsidy will be given to industrial units located in selected areas in respect of raw materials which are brought into and finished goods which are taken out of such areas... (vii) Freight charges for movement by road/sea will be determined on basis of transport/transshipment rates fixed by Central Government/State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned from time to time or actual freight paid, whichever is less." Accordingly, it was contended that once only sum of Rs. 5,17,123 had been received out of Rs. 21,18,637, balance of Rs. 16,11,477 could not be added to income of assessee. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of apex court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) to submit that once there was neither accrual nor receipt of income though entry had been made in books, it was only hypothetical income and had not materialised. Therefore, order of Tribunal was not justified in upholding assessment order and allowing appeal of Revenue. Counsel for Revenue, on other hand, has submitted that this was neither case of assessee before Tribunal as such nor before assessing authority rather benefit of section 80-IB of Act had been sought. Nil return had been filed and on reopening after recording reasons by assessing authority, assessment order had been passed on December 4, 2009 (annexure A. 2) and it had been noticed that assessee had been adopting mercantile system of accounting and had credited subsidy receivable account with sum of Rs. 21,28,603 on March 31, 2002. Keeping in view provisions of section 80-IB, Assessing Officer held that subsidy received was income incidental to industrial undertaking and had no direct nexus with it and would not be eligible for deduction and amount had been added as income. Accordingly, it was contended that it was never case before assessing authority as now contended that amount had never been received. perusal of paper-book would go on to show that no certificate as such was obtained from General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kathua for year in question, i.e., 2002-03. return had been filed on October 30, 2002, and had been duly processed under section 143(1) of Act on January 27, 2003. It was noticed that transport subsidy had been received by assessee from Corporation which had not been declared as income and case was reopened on July 16, 2008. Thereafter, assessment was framed on December 4, 2009, by noticing that transport subsidy had been received from State Government and had no direct nexus with industrial undertaking and sum of Rs. 21,28,603 was liable to tax and added to returned income. assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT") which was partly allowed by upholding reasoning given by assessing authority on issue of section 80-IB that assessee was not eligible for deduction since receipt of transport subsidy did not fall in category of direct source of profit but was any other profit. However, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted benefit of sum of Rs. 16,11,480 on account of fact that it had not been received by assessee and, therefore, need not be taxed at hands of assessee. Two appeals were filed before Tribunal by both parties. On basis of consensus arrived at, that benefit of rebate under section 80-IB of Act could not be granted, on transport subsidy received in view of judgment of apex court in CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 (SC), appeal of assessee was dismissed. However, Tribunal allowed appeal of Revenue whereby Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had given benefit of Rs. 16,11,480 on account of fact that assessee had not filed any documentary evidence supporting its claim for concerned assessment year and had adopted mercantile system of accounting. It had credited subsidy receivable on March 21, 2002, and, therefore, it was considered to be received on said date. Accordingly, appeal of Revenue was allowed. Thus, it would be apparent that assessee apart from adopting mercantile system of accounting had chosen to take benefit of section 80-IB of Act and sought exemption. It had never taken plea before authorities below which is now sought to be raised that it was only liable to be assessed to tune of Rs. 5,17,123 which was actually received in year concerned. As noticed neither was certificate filed from concerned General Manager, District Industries Centre, when return was filed on March 31, 2002. certificate was only obtained for subsequent period and, therefore, it was never only case of assessee from day one that it could take benefit of clause 6(vii) of Scheme which has been reproduced above on ground that actual freight paid would be income. Once that was not specific case before assessing authority and neither same material had been placed before Tribunal, we are of view that substantial question of law which is now sought to be raised on strength of aforesaid clause of Scheme is not permissible. It is settled principle that substantial question of law would only be on strength of documents which have been brought before authorities below and also which was subject matter of consideration before Tribunal. Once stand was contrary before assessing authority at initial stage, argument which is now sought to be raised cannot be addressed before this court. Resultantly, judgment in Shoorji Vallabhdas' case (supra) relied upon by assessee will be of no avail since in that case it was specific case of assessee as to what would be rate of commission as per agreement which had been entered into and what had actually been received. Thus, keeping in view of above facts and circumstances, this court is of opinion that no substantial question of law as contended arises. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. *** Maken Cement Industries v. Commissioner of Income-tax