:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.668 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Devang Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED :16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue in the appeal memo, in the grounds raised has set out that they have preferred an appeal against the order of the tribunal for the Assessment Year 1988-89 and the same is pending. 2. On 12.9.2005 this court granted two weeks time to produce the copies of the previous orders passed by the authorities under the Act for the assessment years 1988.89 onwards. The revenue was put on notice that no further time will be granted. The matter came up thereafter on several occasions. Revenue has not complied with the order of this court. This court had also passed a further order on 14.11.2005. We also find that in another order it is set out that the matter has been argued and the decision is awaited. The learned counsel points out that the appeal is pending before the authorities below and not before this court. :2: 3. In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the assessee had sold certain shares which result in loss. The A.O. has taken the view that the loss arose out of dealings in shares and the same were bogus dealings. The Commissioner (Appeals) had followed its earlier order dated 30.1.1997 for the Assessment year 1990.91 and held that the loss in question should be treated as speculation loss and the appellant should be allowed to carry forward the said loss as per law. . Before the Tribunal two appeals for the assessment years 1990.91 and 1993.94 were disposed of by common order confirming the order of CIT (Appeals). The revenue instead of preferring two appeals has preferred one appeal for the two assessment years. That is not permissible by law. 2. Even otherwise the finding that dealing in shares was speculative is purely a finding of fact. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner was confirmed by the Tribunal. In the context of the two concurrent findings, the question of law as framed would not arise and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I..REBELLO, J.)