:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. Shri.Hanumant S.Tambe ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.N.Joshi a/w.V.V.Khemkar for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the above Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law. a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on machinery value of Rs.4.06 lac rightly made by the Assessing Officer? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.10.73 lac made by Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment in agricultural land without appreciating in proper prospective the entries in the seized papers and the evidentiary value of the seized property documents which are bearing thumb impression/signature of the concerned parties? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Ld.CIT(A)’s order in deleting the addition of Rs.3 lac made by the AO; relating to loan :2: advanced without appreciating in full, entries found in the seized documents which have been brought out by the AO in the Assessing Order? d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.9.2 lac & Rs.12.22 lac made by the AO; without appreciating in proper perspective, the entries in seized documents vis-a-vis the disclosure made in regular return of income filed? 2. We have perused the judgment dated 10th January,2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has concurred with the findings of fact given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) with regard to the aforesaid questions, which are sought to be raised as questions of law in the above Appeal. In fact, the Tribunal has merely confirmed the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). There is no substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal. The Appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)