D.K. Kapur, J.
1. Though this application prays for reference of three questions, we find that question No. 3 has already been referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The remaining two question were not referred. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is the question whether the sole selling agency commission should be allowed as an expense. We agree with the Tribunal that this is a question of fact and the Tribunal itself has allowed this commission on the basis that the same has been allowed for several earlier years. No question of law, thereforee arises.
As far as the second question is concerned, it is as to whether there was an under valuation of the closing stock. The facts given in the Tribunal's order show that the stock was valued at Rs. 135.55 per quintal, because that was the effective rate from July 1, 1972, as per the Government of India Notification dated June 15, 1972. On the other hand, the rate on June 30, 1972, was Rs. 145 per quintal. The closing stock was valued at cost or market price, whichever was lesser. It is urged by learned counsel that the closing stock should have been valued at the market rate as on June 30, 1972. On the other hand, the method of making up of accounts is to carry the closing stock of one year into the next year as the opening stock. It so happens that the price of levy sugar, which is fixed by the Government, altered from Rs. 145 per quintal, on June 30, 1972, to Rs. 135.55 per quintal, on July 1, 1972. If the higher price was shown for the closing stock, it would be an overestimate for the following year. So, we agree that the Tribunal has correctly allowed the closing stock to be valued at Rs. 135.55 per quintal, because this stock could not have been sold at a price higher than Rs. 135.55 per quintal, after June 30, 1972. We would accordingly hold that neither question requires to be referred to this court and dismiss the application. No order as to costs.
2. Petition dismissed.