1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2287 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Pune ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Maya Engineering Works, Pune ..Respondent. .... Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 7 June 2010. P.C. : The following two questions of law have been raised in the appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal justifies in deleting the addition on account of unproved consumption of raw material without taking into consideration the documents on record; 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in not accepting the contents of the tax audit report prepared as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act as reliable documentary 2 evidence with regard to valuation of closing stock;” On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal and more particularly of the reasons contained in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, we are of the view that no substantial question of law would arise. The Tribunal has furnished a finding of fact on the basis of which it has come to the conclusion that the figures contained in the tax audit report could not be accepted. For instance, the Tribunal has held that even as per the excise records the quantity of closing stock could not have been more than 60 Tons, but the Assessing Officer simply adopted the figure contained in the tax audit report for closing stock, disregarding other contemporaneous evidence. Since the Tribunal has furnished valid reasons for not accepting the tax audit report, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)