IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2008 The CIT-24 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Sharad Construction Company .. Respondent Mr.R.Ashokan for the Appellant. Mr.K.Shivarama with Mr.A.R.Singh for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ. V.C.DAGA, JJ. V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATE : 2nd December, 2008 DATE : 2nd December, 2008 DATE : 2nd December, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the Tribunal’s judgment dated 22nd April, 2008 wherein in paragraph No.10.1 the Tribunal has categorically observed as under:- "We noted that the basis on which the AO has applied the rate @ 1775/- per sq.ft. is the paper found during the course or survey from the possession of Shri.Tikkam Jain, an employee of the assessee. We have seen the contents of this paper reproduced in the order of the AO and found that this paper does not indicate anything about the transaction of the year under consideration. The assessee has disclosed the sale price which was recorded in the books of account and that was accepted by the AO also. Thereafter, proceedings u/s.147/148 were initiated. As inferred from the order of the AO, the proceedings u/s.147/148 were initiated on the basis of the paper found during the course of survey which is relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and not 2003-04." 2. In view of above finding of fact there is no substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)