bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.617 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Ghanshyamdas Goyal ..Respondent Ms.Anuradha Mane for appellant. Mr.K.Gopal a/w.Jitendra Singh for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 17th June,2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for parties. 2. Perused appeal. 3. So far as the first question raised in the appeal is concerned, it relates to the deletion of addition made in the sum of Rs.30,73,267/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewelery. The Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and recorded a categorical finding of fact that during the course of search the Jangad slips issued to the different family members were found together with the stock register recording personal jewelery owned by the family members were found. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) based on appreciation of evidence and it reiterated that the jewelery found during the course of search belonged to the different family members and not the assessee. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. No question of law on this count arises. 4. Second question sought to be raised is relates to the deleting of addition of Rs. 1,53,653/- made on account of payments made to the housing society. While appreciating the submissions made, the Tribunal has taken into account the absence of recovery of incriminating material with regard to such payments during the course of search. The Tribunal has confirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) recording finding of fact that the order of the Assessing Officer is not at fault. This finding is based on appreciation of evidence. Hence, we do not see any substantial question of law on this count. 5. The third question relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made on account of household withdrawals. Again here also, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal has confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The said question can hardly be said to be a substantial question of law. Hence, appeal on this count is rejected. 6. So far as last last question, which relates to the deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disclosure made by the assessee under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into account the material available on record and on appreciation thereof, confirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), based on the decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. 91 ITR 18 (SC) holding that the assessee was absolutely justified in declaring his undisclosed income in the block period at Rs.6,00,000/- as against Rs.30,00,000/- which he had admitted at the time of search. 7. In the above view of the matter and considering the concurrent findings of fact which is based clearly on appreciation of evidence, we do not see any substantial question of law in this appeal. The appeal is totally devoid of any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)