IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1311 OF 2008 The CIT, Central-I )..Appellants V/s. M/s.Safmarine (I) Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellants. Mr.Poraskaka with A.K.Jasani for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 28.01.2009. PC 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following three questions :- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the I.T.A.T. has erred in deleting the employee cost and the establishment cost of the Principal, which were falsely claimed as deduction by the assessee company ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the I.T.A.T has erred in deleting the addition without taking cognizance of the seized documents, i.e. Page No.35 and 113 of annexure A/2 and Page No.46 of Annexure A/1 dated 10.10.2001 confirming that the Principal was maintaining lines of regional office in the office of the assesee company ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the I.T.A.T. has erred in deleting the addition without taking cognizance of the statements of the employees recorded during the course of the search that they had been working for the Principal and not for the assessee company ? 2. It was revenue which was in appeal before ITAT : 2 : against the order of CIT(A). Learned ITAT after considering the findings recorded by CIT(A) once again re-appreciated the documentary evidence on record. In paragraph-8 of its order it clearly held that considering the documentary evidence on record, the answer to question no.7 by Shri Pravin Dave can be discarded. In so far as other questions are concerned it has also recorded a finding of fact. 3. In our opinion, considering two concurrent findings of fact, the questions of law as framed would not arise and consequently appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)