Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. In these actions, the parties are distinct and different. But nonetheless, the questions arising for consideration in these actions are so interlinked in such a way as is not possible to decide the one without the other. Desirable it is, in this view of the matter, to dispose of them by a common order. The factual matrix relevant for arriving at a decision in relation to the question under reference in the tax case may now be briefly stated : (a) The assessee, V. Chandraprakasa Nadar & Co., Trichy, is a registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1975-76 for which the accounting year ended on 4th December, 1973, being the date on which the firm was dissolved. The firm dealt with hardware, paints, cement and building materials on retail basis. The closing stock as per books on 4th December, 1973 amounted to Rs. 9, 27, 459.66. (b) The assessee filed original return admitting income of Rs. 91, 890 followed by a second revised return admitting an income of Rs. 2, 78, 235 inclusive of an addition of Rs. 1, 78, 075 towards valuation of closing stock. (c) Originally, the assessee valued the closing stock at cost as hitherto been done, but in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT, the closing stock was valued at the market rate which resulted in an addition of Rs. 1, 78, 075 towards the closing stock in the revised return filed. The ITO accepted the valuation of the closing stock as per the revised return filed by the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) was of the view that the valuation adopted by the ITO was not correct and he, in fact, determined the value of the closing stock by adding 5 per cent to the cost price in order to arrive at the market value on the date of dissolution.On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal vacated the valuation made by the CIT(A) and restored the addition made by the ITO to the closing stock. On these facts, the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), referred the question as below, for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the closing stock on dissolution of the firm, which was distributed between the parties should be valued with reference to retail market price and not wholesale market price in order to determine the market value of the stock ?" The question as framed above, we rather feel, did not bring about the real dispute between the parties, in the sense of arising from the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, the said question requires to be reframed. The reframed question reads as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in valuing the closing stock of the firm at market value on 4th December, 1973, the date of dissolution of the firm ?" The juridical facts giving rise to the writ proceedings may now be briefly referred to : (a) The firm styled V. Chandraprakasa Nadar & Co. was dissolved on 4th December, 1973. On dissolution of the firm, the stock on hand was distributed among the partners. (b) Some five partners of the dissolved firm, viz., Chandraprakasa Nadar & Co., constituted a new firm P. Velayudha Nadras & Sons, having their place of business at 28. Pala Kharai Road, Trichy-8, on 9th December, 1973. The said five partners brought to stock distributed to them in the process of dissolution of the old firm Chandraprakasa Nadar & Co., to the newly constituted firm (P. Velayudha Nadar & Sons) on the same value as was adopted in the dissolution accounts of the old dissolved firm for adjustment and determination of mutual accounts and rights among its partners.(c) In the assessment to income-tax of the old dissolved firm, made on 14th March, 1977, the stock on hand on 4th December, 1973, which was distributed to its partners, was revalued by the ITO at market price. (d) In the meantime, however, the assessment of the newly constituted firm for the relevant year had already been completed on 23rd March, 1976. In its assessment, the opening stock had been valued at the same value as was adopted in the dissolution of accounts of the old dissolved firm. (d) In the meantime, however, the assessment of the newly constituted firm for the relevant year had already been completed on 23rd March, 1976. In its assessment, the opening stock had been valued at the same value as was adopted in the dissolution of accounts of the old dissolved firm. (e) The newly constituted firm filed a revision petition under s. 264 of the Act before the CIT, Madurai, seeking alteration of the value of the opening stock by adoption of the market price, the price as adopted by the old dissolved firm, relatable to its closing stock. (f) The CIT, by his order dt. 15th October, 1982, however, dismissed the revision petition. (g) The newly constituted firm resorted to the writ proceedings, challenging the order of the CIT in refusing to rectify the value of the opening stock of its firm at the level of the closing stock of the old dissolved firm. In the light of the facts as stated above, the question that arises for consideration in the writ proceedings is as to whether the stock brought in by the five partners of the old dissolved firm, who are members of the newly constituted firm, should be valued at the same value, as was adopted in the dissolution of accounts of the old dissolved firm in the adjustment and determination of mutual accounts and rights among its partners or at the market rate, as had been determined by the ITO in framing the final assessment on dissolution of the old firm on 4th December, 1973. We shall now enter into an arena of discussion in rather a bid to find out an answer to the reframed question in the tax case. Our endeavour in solving the tangle so posed in the reframed question may not present any problem at all inasmuch as such a question arose for consideration before superior Courts of jurisdiction-High Court and Supreme Court, in the decision of this Court in G. R. Ramachari & Co. vs. and in the decision of the apex Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT in both these decisions, the question that arose for consideration was as to what was the basis to be adopted for valuation of the closing stock on dissolution of a firm. vs. and in the decision of the apex Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT in both these decisions, the question that arose for consideration was as to what was the basis to be adopted for valuation of the closing stock on dissolution of a firm. The view expressed by this Court as well as the apex Court in the decisions referred to above reflects in substance as below : "The privilege of valuing the opening and closing stocks in a consistent manner is available only to a continuing business and it cannot be adopted where a business has come to an end and the stock on hand has to be disposed in order to determine the exact position of the business on the date of the closure. Where a partnership, which has been valuing its opening and closing stocks at cost price when its business was continuing, dissolves and one of the partners takes over the stock-on-hand, in order to arrive at the correct picture of the trading results of the partnership on the date when it ceases to function, the valuation of the stock-on-hand should be made on the basis of the prevailing market price. Therefore, that the partner who takes over the stock-on-hand, values them at cost price is of no effect." On the face of the decision in the cases of G. R. Ramachari & Co. (supra) and A.L.A. Firm (supra), it goes without saying that the answer to the reframed question cannot be any one other than the one that the Tribunal was justified in valuing the closing stock, which was distributed to its partners on dissolution at the market price on the date on which the firm was dissolved. This question is answered accordingly. We shall now proceed to answer the question posed as above in the writ proceedings. Neither the decision in the case of G. R. Ramachari & Co. (supra) nor the decision in the case of A.L.A. Firm (supra) had the occasion to decide the question as to what is the value that should be adopted, for the opening stock of the successor-firm, which happened to acquire such stock from the predecessor-firm on its dissolution. We have to recapitulate here that in order to arrive at the trading results of the old dissolved firm, the closing stock of the said firm had been valued at market price. We have to recapitulate here that in order to arrive at the trading results of the old dissolved firm, the closing stock of the said firm had been valued at market price. The opening stock of the newly constituted firm, which was constituted five days later, consisted of the acquisition of closing stock of the old dissolved firm. To put it otherwise, some of the disposed stock of the old dissolved firm became the opening stock of the newly constituted firm. To bring about correct trading results of the newly constituted firm, therefore, there can be no other way except to value the opening stock of the newly constituted firm at the market price. The reason is rather very obvious. If the newly constituted firm acquired such stock in the open market to trade in such stocks, the newly constituted firm has to necessarily part with the market price for the acquisition of such stocks. Therefore, the fact that such stocks had been acquired by the newly constituted firm from the old dissolved firm at the time of its dissolution does not make any difference at all. This apart, the newly constituted firm and the old dissolved firm are distinct and different entities and the trading results of each of these entities is capable of being arrived at only if such valuation, i.e., to say, market price is adopted, either for the purpose of valuing the opening stock of the newly constituted firm as well as for the purpose of valuing the closing stock of the old dissolved firm.It is perhaps to arrive at the trading results that the newly constituted firm filed an application under s. 264 of the Act before the CIT for the modification of the cost value of the opening stock into one of market value. To say that the case of the assessee on hand does not fall within the parameters prescribed by s. 264 of the Act, cannot be expected to commend acceptance at our hands. Of course, the power in hearing in favour of the CIT under the section is capable of being exercised subject to other provisions of this Act. To say that the case of the assessee on hand does not fall within the parameters prescribed by s. 264 of the Act, cannot be expected to commend acceptance at our hands. Of course, the power in hearing in favour of the CIT under the section is capable of being exercised subject to other provisions of this Act. The CIT, it appears, had confounding confusion in his mind that the opening stock acquired by the newly constitute firm is a depreciable asset and if the same is valued at the market price, which is higher than the cost price, the possibility of the assessee raising a contention that it is entitled to depreciation at a certain percentage allowable under the Act beyond the written down value pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated under Expln. 1 to s. 43(6) of the Act, cannot be ruled out of consideration. The closing stock, in the instant case, such as hardware and paints cannot at all be stated to be a depreciable asset. Sec. 2(14) which defines 'capital asset' also excludes in its definition any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of business or profession. So to the rationale so projected by the CIT, we are unable to affix our seal of approval. We are clearly of the view that it is a fit case in which the CIT ought to have exercised his powers of revision under s. 264 in allowing the assessee newly constituted firm, to revalue the opening stock at market price in order to arrive at the correct trading results. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT and direct the ITO to reframe the assessment of the newly constituted firm for the asst. yr. 1975-76 after valuing the opening stock at market price. The point is answered accordingly.The tax case and the writ petition are, thus, disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. After the dictation of the order in the open Court was completed, Mr. yr. 1975-76 after valuing the opening stock at market price. The point is answered accordingly.The tax case and the writ petition are, thus, disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. After the dictation of the order in the open Court was completed, Mr. S. V. Subramaniam, the learned senior counsel, representing the Revenue, made and oral application under Art. 134 of the Constitution praying for a certificate to be issued for appeal to the Supreme Court that the question involved in the writ petition is a substantial question of law of general importance and we also feel that such a question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court by way of an authoritative pronouncement and in this view of the matter, the certificate prayed for by the said learned senior counsel is granted.