( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1091 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1091 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1091 OF 2008 The CIT, Mumbai CITy-21, Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Shiv Sagar Anex .. Respondent Mr.N.A.Kazi for the Appellant. Mr.A.R.Singh for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ. V.C.DAGA, JJ. V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATE : 21st November, 2008 DATE : 21st November, 2008 DATE : 21st November, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks leave to amend the Appeal as per the re-drafted questions of law tendered herein. The aforesaid re-drafted questions of law are taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. Leave is granted to amend the Appeal. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. 2. The aforesaid re-drafted questions of law, read as under:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT, Mumbai was justified in admitting belated, so called, Revised Grounds of Appeal dated 26th December, 2005 and further substituting them for the original grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT, Mumbai was justified in deleting the addition made of Rs.66,66,600/- on the basis of retracted statement, recorded u/s.132(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961, of Shri.Shankar Poojari which has ( 2 ) been treated not genuine and valid by the ITAT No.456/Mum/03 dated 03.10.2006? 3. So far as aforesaid Question No.(i) is concerned, the ITAT’s order mentions in paragraph No.7 that the rival submissions of both the parties were heard and the record was perused. From the order we do not find that the Revenue, at any point of time, had objected to the revised grounds of Appeal which are dated 26th December, 2005, whereas the impugned order was passed a year later i.e. on 19.12.2006. We do not find that the Revenue had objected to the revised grounds of Appeal. No substantial quesion of law is involved in this Appeal so far as aforesaid Question No.(i) is concerned. Hence, Question No.(i) stands rejected. 4. So far as aforesaid Question No.(ii) is concerned, the same is based on retractive statement, whereas the finding of the Tribunal is not based on the retractive statement. In view thereof, even so far as this Question No.(ii) is concerned, there is no substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. Hence, Question No.(ii) also stands rejected. 5. No substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. ( 3 ) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)