Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench B, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal), to refer the following question of law said to be arising out of its order dt. 28th July, 1989 relating to asst. yr. 1981-82 for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)/ Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,13,090 made by the AO on account of undervaluation of closing stock by changing the method of valuation by the assessee ?" 2. Before approaching this Court, Revenue had filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal with the same prayer which was declined vide its order dt, 5th Dec., 1989. 3. Assessee, M/s Haryana Minerals Ltd., Narnaul, is an undertaking of Haryana State carrying on the business of mining and manufacture of marble and state stones. During the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1981-82, it filed its return of income on 31st July, 1981 in which the value of the closing stock had been shown at Rs. 17,59,071.53. However, later on, it filed a revised return reducing the value of stock to Rs. 9,45,973.24. On being asked to explain the difference of Rs. 8,13,098.11, it was stated that earlier valuation was made on the basis of sale price whereas the valuation as per revised return, was shown on the basis of cost price. The AO noticing that the assessee had been valuing its stock on the basis of market price in earlier years, whereas the valuation in the revised return had been made on the cost price which was lower, observed that method once adopted had to be consistently followed. He, therefore, made the addition of Rs. 8,13,090 to the total income of the assessee on the ground that there was no reason for changing the method of valuation. 4. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who accepted the same holding the change of method of valuation to be bona fide which was followed in the subsequent years as well. He, accordingly, deleted the addition. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who accepted the same holding the change of method of valuation to be bona fide which was followed in the subsequent years as well. He, accordingly, deleted the addition. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in view of the audit report and comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, observed that the change in the method of valuation of the closing stock was bona fide and that the same was consistently followed in the subsequent years. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. 6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has not been able to controvert the abovementioned findings which are essentially findings of fact. We, are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and no question of law arises out of the same for the consideration of this Court.The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.