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. 190 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax-13, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Maharashtra State Co-op. Marketing Federation Ltd. ... Respondent. A.S.Shivsharan for the appellant. S.N.Inamdar for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused appeal papers. 2. By this appeal, the following question of law is sought to be raised by the Revenue. "(a) Whether on the facts a circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of CIT(A) and observing that no additions/ adjustments have been made to the returned ‘Nil’ income by the assessing officer while passing the order of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act? (b) Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in cancelling the demand of Rs.20,05,599/- being additional tax raised by the assessing officer on account of prima facie adjustments u/s. 143(1)(a) read with section 143(1A) of the Act? (c) Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that prima facie adjustment being demand of set off of losses made by the assessing officer u/s. 143(1)(a) read with section 143(1A) are not contemplated as prima facie adjustment u/s.143(a)(a)? 3. Considering the concurrent findings of fact by C.I.T. (Appeals) as well as that of Tribunal that the assessing officer has not made any additions converting into positive income and thereby resulting into reduction of loss, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. No substantial question of law is involved. 4. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)