-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1144 OF 2004 Dhiren A. Modi ).. Appellant Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ) Central Circle-17, Mumbai ).. Respondent Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Appellant. Mr Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE: 8TH JULY 2008. P.C. The present Appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 26th July 2004. Vide this order, the Tribunal found no infirmity with the order of CIT (Appeals) and the Appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed. While impugning the above order in the present Appeal, the Appellant has suggested and raised the following questions of law:- -2- “(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in not giving any finding with regards to the ground of appeal relating to the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000 after noting the contentions of the parties ? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act to the Appellant inasmuch as the re-opening was done on the basis of investigation conducted by FERA authorities in October, 1996 and such material would obviously not have any bearing on assessment year 1999-2000 ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,89,990/- made on account of alleged income of six parties treating them as benami of the Appellant even though they having denied carrying on of any business during the assessment year 1999-2000 ? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the addition on Rs.3,89,990/- made in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Appellant was not furnished with the material relied upon for making the addition in the hands of the Appellant ? (e) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Tribunal that the Petitioner carried on the business in the name of six concerns is perverse and/or contrary to the material on records inasmuch as three parties out of six were assessed to tax by the department on substantive basis ?” -3- 2. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant mainly emphasized that the first question is a question of law inasmuch as the Income Tax authorities could not have re-opened the assessment for the year 1999-2000 as, according to the assessee, they were carrying no business since December 1996. Some statements which have been placed on record are relied upon for this purpose. 3. Firstly, we are of the considered view that no question of law arises in the present case much less substantial question of law. It is pure matter of appreciation of evidence based upon the record. Further, we may notice that even this ground was not raised before the Tribunal in the grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee and correctly so the Tribunal has not discussed this issue at all. We cannot permit the Appellant to raise this ground in argument before this Court for the first time. In the circumstances above referred, we find no merits in the Appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. -4- CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.