Held  that  view of the Tribunal is  a reasonable one and could not be termed perverse. This was especially in view of the seasonal nature of the business carried out by the assessee and the short shelf life of the seeds. The Tribunal held that it was imperative for the assessee to take into account the quantity of unsold seeds at the end of the year and the need to revalidate their further utility and to take them into stock for the next season. Therefore, it could not be said that the provision for sales return was unascertained or unreasonable. There was no error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law. (AY.2013-14)