IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus M/S TIMBLO PVT.LTD., ... Respondent Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. Pardiwala and Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocates for the respondent. Coram:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 22nd July, 2008 P.C. The present appeal is directed against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji dated 8.8.07. The Revenue has challenged the said order on the ground that the assessee has not led any evidence to show that the debt subsists and did not cease to exist. Secondly, it is contended that the expenditure incurred on foreign travels by the Directors was deduction. 2. The Tribunal answered both these questions against the Revenue while relying upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal concluded "In the present case also assessee has already owned mining rights, it has not acquired any capital assets by removing those houses and, therefore this expense deserves to be treated as capital expenditure this ground of appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted". While coming to this conclusion, it relies upon the Judgments in 105 TTJ 317, 91 TTJ 296 and 254 ITR 434. 3. It is stated on behalf of the assessee that the relations between the parties had strained in the meanwhile and they could not bring on record the confirmation. But the other relevant facts which were brought on record have been accepted by the Tribunal. 4. The other ground is not pressed. 5. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no question of law arise, much less any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.