/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax -15, Mumbai ...Appellant Vs. Manisha S. Jain ...Respondent ----- Mr.Vimal Gupta i/b Pankaj Kapoor for Appellant CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M. KANADE J. DATED JULY 3, 2008 P.C. 1. The present Appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17th October, 2003, while calculating the year of assessment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had passed following order: “We have the both sides and perused record available with us. We have also gone through the paper book filed by the assessee containing pages 1 to 37. We have also perused the pages indicated by the learned AR of the / 2 / assessee i.e. Pages nos. 11 to 27 and found that the same income has been taxed twice in two different assessee's which is not permissible under the law as stated by the learned AR of the assessee. M/s. Plastika Enteriprsed in its block return for the even period has shown Rs.83,651/- being profit component of the said addition as informed by the learned AR of the Assessee at the time of hearing. There we are of the considered opinion that having regard to the totality of the facts addition in dispute has been wrongly made in the hands of the assessee and the same is accordingly deleted.” 2. While passing the impugned order, it is contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the order. At the outset, we may notice that the same income has been taxed twice in two different assessee's, which is not permissible under the law. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the / 3 / State stated that there no incriminating material and the appreciation of evidence is not a question of law as contemplated under the Act. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE J.