IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1777 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-, ... Appellant. V/s. Kaushik P. Zhaveri. ... Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant. Jitendra Jain for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3rd August 2009. P.C. : Heard. Office objections are over-ruled. Appeal is taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal relying upon its decision in the case of Mini Exports and/or Kartik Exports owned by Kamal Kumar Johri and Hari Om Sharma and/or Galaxy Exports held that so long as the VDIS Certificate issued under the VDIS, 1997 is holding the field, it is not open for any of the authorities created under the Act, to go behind the certificate and canvass a contention contrary to the certificate issued under the VDIS. We had an occasion to consider similar question in Income Tax Appeal No.634 of 2009 (CIT V/s. Uttamchand Jain) decided on 2-7-2009, wherein we have concurred with the said view of the tribunal. 3. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, the tribunal has recorded finding that the transaction of sale of diamonds declared under VDIS 1997 is a genuine sale transaction and that no efforts were made by the revenue authorities to show that the sale transactions was not genuine. The appeals filed by the revenue against the decisions of the Tribunal deleting the additions in the case of Kamal Kumar Johri and / or Hari Om Sharma and/or Galaxy Exports have already been dismissed by this Court for want of removal of office objections and/or in default long back and no steps have been taken to restore the said appeals. As a result, the decisions of the Tribunal in these cases have attained finality. In any event, the decision of the Tribunal in the case before us that the sale transactions are genuine transactions is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. This being a finding of fact, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 4. For the reasons recorded above as well as the reasons recorded in the case of Uttamchand Jain (Supra), the appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)