JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Tax Case Nos. 273, 274, 311 & 312 of 1980 relate to assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74 and 1974-75. In other respects these cases are identical and the question referred in each of them is the same. These cases are, accordingly, being disposed of by this common order. 2. In terms of Section 156(1) of the Income Tax Act the following question was referred by the Income Tax Tribunal for consideration by this Court. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of this case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest of hire purchase was to be assessed on the basic of realisation and not on accrual basic." 3. It is to be noted that the same question for an earlier assessment year was also referred to this Court. The reference was registered as Tax Case No. 38 of 1976 and was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8.11.1984 which is reported in 158 (1986) I.T.R., 96. On a detailed consideration of material facts and circumstance this Court answered the reference in the negative that is in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the answer to these reference should simply follow the earlier judgment of this Court. 5. Mr. Bajla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the earlier Bench decision of this Court requires re-consideration. Mr. Bajla submits that the earlier decision of this Court was based on the finding that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting. This according to Mr. Bajla was an erroneous finding and vitiated the judgment. Mr. Bajla further contended that the income which had been subjected to tax on accrual basic for the earlier assessment years related to interests on payments for goods sold on hire purchase basic. In the subsequent years no recoveries were in fact made against those sales and according to him, this sufficiently established that the so called income was only illusory. He submitted that on this score also the Bench decision of this Court in relation to the earlier assessment year should not be followed. I am not impressed by either of these two contentions. 6. He submitted that on this score also the Bench decision of this Court in relation to the earlier assessment year should not be followed. I am not impressed by either of these two contentions. 6. I may also note that other than the Division Bench decision of this Court there is an even more insurmountable impediment in the way of the assessee in the decision of the Supreme Court (which come after the abovementioned decision of this court) in the case of State Bank of Travancore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, 158 (1986) I.T.R., 102. We have gone thorough this decision and I am of the considered opinion that it squarely covers the case before us. 7. Mr. Bajla made a strenuous though vain effort to persuade us that the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court was incorrect and required re-consideration and the majority decision of the Supreme Court did not apply to the facts of this case. 8. I am unable to accept this submission. I am of the firm opinion that the earlier decision of this Court in the case of the present assessee for the earlier assessment year had been correctly rendered and the Supreme Court decision squarely covers the case under the present references. I, accordingly, hold and find that the references in these cases must also be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 9. Before parting with the records of this case, however, I must note one of the apprehension raised by Bajla. Mr. Bajla submitted that though interests were taxed on accrual basic in the earlier assessment years but when a part of that very amount was actually received in the subsequent assessment years, these sums were again taxed on receipt basic. This, according to Mr. Bajla was patently a case of double taxation. He said that earlier he had no occasion to make a grievance on the score as his case had been accepted and allowed by the Tribunal on the main question. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the apprehension was wholly misplaced and misconceived and the income in any assessment year having been taxed on accrual basic, there was no question of the same income or a portion thereof being subjected to tax in subsequent years on receipt basic. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the apprehension was wholly misplaced and misconceived and the income in any assessment year having been taxed on accrual basic, there was no question of the same income or a portion thereof being subjected to tax in subsequent years on receipt basic. 11. We do not want to enter into this controversy at this stage but we merely take note of it as matter of record and leave it open to the Tribunal to deal with this aspect of the matter in accordance with law when the Tribunal passes necessary consequential orders on receipt of this order from this Court. 12. Let a copy of this order be remitted to the Income Tax Tribunal.