1 rpa 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.354 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.354 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.354 OF 2006 M/s.J.Pitamberdas, Mumbai .. Appellant V/s. Asstt.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-17, Mumbai. .. Respondent Mr.Jain i/b. Mr.Atul Jasani for the Appellant. Mr.Vinod Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . Admit. 2. This matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Following questions have been framed : 1. Whether the findings of the Tribunal at para 7 of its order are perverse inasmuch as same is based 2 on no material on record and also contrary to the material on record ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not giving any find as to whether the income based on lose papers pertains to Assessment Year 1992-93 or any other year although to same was specifically taken and pressed ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not granting deduction on account of purchase made which were added as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act ? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in adding the income in the hands of the appellant although the Department had not challenged the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order dated 25th March, 1996 ? 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that a question of law falls for consideration in as much as concerned income has been added to the assessee’s income based on no evidence and as such the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. We 3 have gone through the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has found that certain papers were found in the car of Mr.Mayur Choksi, who was son of one of the partners. These papers disclose income which was never explained in the return of Mr.Mayur Choksi. The receipt of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) was shown on account of labour charges but no details were given in that return. Therefore, analysing these facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the papers found in the car of son of the partner were related to the persons of the assessee firm. Such a finding cannot be termed to be perverse or based on no evidence, and as such no question of law falls for consideration. 3. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)