1 rpa 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. 343 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2006 M/s.Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1,(1), Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.Subhash S.Shetty a/w. Mr.Atul K.Jasani for the Appellant. Mr.Vinod Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . This is a case in which assessment were made after the search and in this context following questions have been framed : I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that just because the appellant had filed its block 2 return of income before the copies of seized materials was furnished by the assessing officer, it can not be said that filing of block return was delayed because of failure of assessing officer to furnish copies of seized materials ? II. Whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the interest under section 158BFA(1) can be levied, irrespective of the fact that the delay in filing the block return was caused due to the non-furnishing of the copies of seized materials by the assessing officer ? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that impugned interest u/s. 158BFA is leviable on the appellant despite the fact that the appellant had paid the tax payable on block return before filing the block return ? 2. Basically this is a finding of fact as to whether the assessee had filed the block returns with a delay 3 and the Respondent including the Tribunal have come to the conclusion that the block returns were filed with a delay. Therefore, in our view, no question of law arises. 3. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)