-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No.1315 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City-19 ..Appellant vs. M/s Punjab Sind Paneer Centre ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Shivsaran for appellant. Mr.Jitendra Jain i/b RMG Law Associates for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 12th August, 2008 12th August, 2008 12th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. Mentioned. Not on board. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By the above appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the following question of law. a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of sec.158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the -2- order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the additions of Rs.57,45,084/- made by the A.O.l as undisclosed income and net profit on suppressed sales on the basis of the statements of the assessee recorded u/s 132 of the Act? 3. We have perused the order of the Tribunal dated 21st May, 2007. The Tribunal has rightly observed that once the assessee has immediately retracted his earlier statement unless there is some other corroborative evidence to the contrary the same cannot be relied upon. Over and above the Tribunal has also held that the Assessing Officer has not drawn any adverse inference against the assessee who has not been allowed to cross examine the witnesses. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Tribunal has confirmed the order of CIT(A) holding that addition of Rs.57,45,084/- lakhs and by the assessing officer as undisclosed income and net profit on suppressed sales on the basis of the statements of the assessee was found unjustified and the same was deleted. 4. In view of the above clear finding of fact, there is no question of law involved in the above appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. -3- (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)