(1) STATEMENT OF THE CASE AS directed by their Lordships of the Hon;ble Calcutta High court we hereby draw up the following agreed statement of the case and refer it to High court at Calcutta under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922. (2) THE assessment year concerned is 1951-52, for which the relevant amounting year is the financial year 1950-51. (3) THERE was a joint venture run by one Messrs. Bhagwan Raja Patel & Co. and Messrs. Premier Suppliers Ltd., for purchase and sale of machinery from the disposal department of Assam, and each was having half share in the joint venture. On the 22/10/1949, Messrs. Premier Suppliers Ltd. sold their interest in the venture to the assessee-company and Messrs. Bhagwan Raja Patel sold their interest to Patel Engineering Company, so that the persons now interested in the venture were the assessee-company and Messrs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. The stock of the disposal machinery remaining unsold were thereafter divided between the assessee and Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. The assessee received machinery valued at Rs. 2,06,372.00 as its share, in the Assessees account books for 1949-50 the value was written up by Rs. 4,00,000.00 an equivalent sum having been credited to a capital Reserve account. During this accounting period the assessee;and Patel Engineering Go. Ltd., formed a partnership firm known as "Hind patel Co." in which each had an eight annas share and the assessee transferred his stock of machinery at the book value of Rs. 6,06,372.00 to the new firm. Messrs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., also transferred their share of machinery, which they received on the dissolution of the joint venture, to the new firm after appreciating the value of their share of the machinery in the like manner as the assessee did. The machinery, thus valued at Rs. 6,06,372.00 by each of the partners, remained the investment of each one of them in their partnership firm, Messrs. Hind Patel Co. On 1/04/1950, the first day of the accounting year in question, counter debit and debit entries were made in the assessees and the firms books, respectively. The firm credited the capital account of the assessee with Rs. 6,06,372.00 and debited the machinery account with an equal amount. Same type of entries were made in the case of the other partner, Messrs. Patel Engineering Company. The firm credited the capital account of the assessee with Rs. 6,06,372.00 and debited the machinery account with an equal amount. Same type of entries were made in the case of the other partner, Messrs. Patel Engineering Company. It may be mentioned here that no depreciation was allowed either on the original cost or on the appreciated value of such machinery in the assessment year 1950-51 nor during the year under-consideration. (4) IT was contended before the Income Tax Officer that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 could not be treated as the assessees profits on the ground, inter alia, (1) that the assessee had never debit in the purchase and sale of machinery either before or after; (2) that the capital appreciation by Rs. 4.00 lakhs was made in the-financial year 1949-50, which was not the relevant accounting year for the purpose of assessment for the year in question; and (3) that the disposal machinery which were acquired at Assam were mainly for the purpose of executing their own contracts, namely, the contracts of earth work etc., which required such machinery as had been obtained and not for sale. (5) THE Income-Tax Officer held, disagreeing with the assessees contention, that it was a sale of machinery and the amount for which it was actually sold to the firm fell not within the financial year 1949-50 but during the year under consideration. The Income Tax Officer further observed that earlier balance-sheets of the assessee showed that it had transferred machinery, furniture, office-equipments, etc., from time to time as necessity arose to the firm Messrs. .Hind Patel Co. With regard to the purpose for which the machinery had been acquired at Assam as stated by the assessee, the Income Tax Officier observed that the purpose for which the machinery were acctually acquired was not at all material for determining the question as to whether any profit had been made on the sale of those machinery. It was the manner in, which the machinery had actually been dealt with which was the main criterion for determining the question. The Income Tax Officer, therefore, treated the transaction as,a sale of machinery originally valued at Rs. 2,06,372.00 for a sum of Rs. 6,06,372.00 and hold that the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs was profit of the assessee for business on the sale of disposal machinery in the year under consideration. The Income Tax Officer, therefore, treated the transaction as,a sale of machinery originally valued at Rs. 2,06,372.00 for a sum of Rs. 6,06,372.00 and hold that the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs was profit of the assessee for business on the sale of disposal machinery in the year under consideration. A copy of the Income Tax Officer is Annx. A hereto forming part of the case. (6) ANAPPEAL was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who, on a consideration of the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that neither had there been a sale of machinery by the assessee nor had the assessee entered into an adventure in the nature of trade; nor had any profit resulted to it. Relying upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sir Homi Mehtas Executors and upon the reasons given by him in paragraph 4 of his order, he held as aforesaid and on such conclusion deleted the addition of Rs. 4,00,000.00 from the assessees income. A copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is Annx. B hereto forming part of the case. (7) THE department being aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner preferred an appeal to the tribunal which held that there could be no element of transfer or sale involved in a transaction between ones own self. The tribunal observed that the capital in the partnership firm between the assessee. and the aforesaid Messrs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. was comprised of the written up value of the machinery which fell to each of the above mentioned partners shares. The value of those machinery had not been written up in the firms books but the partners themselves after having valued their shares of the machinery at an appreciated price in their own books contributed it as their capital in the partnership firm. The tribunal further observed that the partnership was neither purchasing nor the partners were selling and what the two partners were actually doing was merely to accept an appreciated value of their already piled up resources. The written up value of the piled tip resources was invested as capital by the partners and there could, therefore, be no element of purchase and sale involved. The appeal by the department was accordingly dismissed. A copy of the order of tribunal is Annx. The written up value of the piled tip resources was invested as capital by the partners and there could, therefore, be no element of purchase and sale involved. The appeal by the department was accordingly dismissed. A copy of the order of tribunal is Annx. C here to forming part of the case. (8) IT is on these facts that we refer the following question of law as desired by the Honble Calcutta High court: "WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 from the total income of the assessee?" Hegde, (9) CIVIL No. 1287 (NT) of 1971 is by special leave and Civil No. 2001 of 1968 is by certificate. Both these appeals arise from areference made to the High court of Calcutta under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The facts of the case are fully set out in the statement of case. There is no need to restate them. The finding of the Tribunal was that there was no sale either at the time when the assessee inflated the price of the machinery which fell to its share at the time of the division or at the time when the new partnership was created. Same is the finding of the High court. We agree with these findings. The machinery that fell to the share of the assessee was never sold. Therefore, there was no question of the assessee making any profit out of them. No one can sell his goods to himself. A sale contemplates a seller and a purchaser. If a person revalues his goods and shows a higher value for them in his books, he cannot be considered as having sold these goods and made profits therefrom. Nor can a person by handing over his goods to a partnership of which he is a partner and that as his share of capital be considered as having sold the goods to the partnership. It is difficult to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the department that there was a sale either at the time when the assessee showed an inflated price of the machinery that fell to its share at the division or when that machinery was used as the capital of the new firm of which he was a partner. It is difficult to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the department that there was a sale either at the time when the assessee showed an inflated price of the machinery that fell to its share at the division or when that machinery was used as the capital of the new firm of which he was a partner. We see no substance inappeal No. 1287 (NT) of 1971. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs (10) NOW coming to Civil No. 2001 of 1968, we revoke the certificate granted by the High court as the same is not supported by any reason. Hence this appeal is not maintainable. It is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.