JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The question referred to this Court u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) runs thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale of the undertaking of low Shaft Furnace at Barbil by the Assessee did not take place during the relevant year and in deleting the sum of Rs. 17,45,889 assessed as profit u/s 41(2) of the income tax Act, 1961? 2. Relevant facts as appear from the statement of the case may be stated in short. There was on agreement on 1st April, 1963 entered into between Messrs. Kalinga Industries Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the company) and the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the Corporation). Under the agreement the company agreed to transfer the properties and assets of the Low Shaft Furnace Pig Plant to the Corporation in accordance with the terms contained therein. Clause 2 of the agreement provided, inter alia, that the consideration for the sale shall be equivalent to aggregate of the following: (a) Depreciated book value with the book assets as on 31-3-1963, certified to be correct by the audit or auditors appointed by the Company and the Corporation jointly. (b) The value of the raw materials, spares, stores at cost and the value of such of the finished products as would be taken over by the Corporation at the end of 31-3-1963 as certified by the auditors in the foregoing cause. (c) The agreed value of the deposits and advances to third parties made by the Company which the Corporation may require to be transferred to it. Clause 3 of the said agreement provided that the net, consideration to be paid by the Corporation to the company shall be arrived at in accordance with the earlier clause as reduced by the sum total 9? the various items in the said Clause 3. In February and Match, 1964 the auditors submitted their report certifying the value of the properties as provided for in the agreement. On 27th February, 1965 the Corporation accepted the valuation report. On 29-7-1965 the company adopted the valuers report. The sale deed was executed on 24-2-1972 and registered on 28-2-1972. The income tax Officer included a sum of Rs. In February and Match, 1964 the auditors submitted their report certifying the value of the properties as provided for in the agreement. On 27th February, 1965 the Corporation accepted the valuation report. On 29-7-1965 the company adopted the valuers report. The sale deed was executed on 24-2-1972 and registered on 28-2-1972. The income tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 17,45,889/- in the assessment and computed the same as profit in the accounting year 1963-64 u/s 41(2) of the Act. The assessment was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal in second appeal did not agree with the assessing authorities and upheld the contention of the company that in the absence of a registered sale deed which was executed in the year 1972 there was no sale in the accounting year relating to the assessment year 1964-65.At the Instance of the Commissioner of income tax (Petitioner) the reference has been made. 3. Section 41, Sub-section (2), of the Act, so far as relevant runs thus: Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture which is owned by the Assessee and which was or has been used for the purposes of business or profession is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery, plant or furniture, as the case may be, together with the amount of scrap value, if any, exceed the written down value, so much of the excess as does not exceed the difference between the actual cost ?and the written? down value shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the business or profession of the previous year in which the moneys payable for the building, machinery, plant or furniture became due: xx xx xx 4. The word "sale" has not been defined in the Income Tax Act. Sale of immovable property must accordingly be construed as it is understood in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Sale of movable property would be guided by the definition as given in the Sale of Goods Act. It is settled that where by one and the same transaction both immovable and ?movable properties are transfer the transaction would be governed by the provision; of law relating to immovable property. The matter is concluded by Commissioner of income tax v. Bhurangya Coal Co. 341. T.R. 802 (S.C). 5. It is settled that where by one and the same transaction both immovable and ?movable properties are transfer the transaction would be governed by the provision; of law relating to immovable property. The matter is concluded by Commissioner of income tax v. Bhurangya Coal Co. 341. T.R. 802 (S.C). 5. On the admitted fact that the registered sale deed was executed in 1972, there was no transfer of title from the company to the Corporation in the relevant year. 6. To get over this difficulty, the learned Standing Counsel contended that though there was no,sale in the relevant year the Low Shaft Furnace shall be treated to have been discarded in that year as under the agreement possession thereof was transferred to the Corporation. The argument though ingenious is untenable. 7. The concept of sale is wholly different from that of discarding. Where properties are transferred under on agreement for sale and possession is delivered there under, the character of the transaction as a sale cannot be destroyed merely because the registered, document evidencing the completed sale is executed subsequently. The word ?discard? carries the following meanings in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary: to throw way, as not needed or not allowed by the game, said of cards; in whist, to throw down a (useless) card of another suit when one cannot follow suit and cannot or will not trump to cast off: to discharge: to reject. When the two words "sold" and "discarded" have been used in juxtaposition, both must be given different meaning. The Legislature cannot be attributed as being guilty of tautology. The concept of one must be excluded from that of the other. For this purposes the intention behind the transaction is the determining factor. The agreement for sale and the registered sale deed do not inculcate that the intention of the company was to throw away or cast off the Low Shift Furnace. It was transferred for consideration. The contract, of sale, however, did not finalise in the year 1963 but in 1972. Delay in the finalisation of the contract would not alter the intrinsic character at the transaction. The tribunal took the correct view. 8. On the aforesaid analysis, we would answer the question in the affirmative. The reference is discharged with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 300/-. B.K. Ray, J. 9. I agree.