1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.691 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 25, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Vijay H. Bhayani ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.809 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri V. Nagesh ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.839 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Harsha M. Shah ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.927 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Preeti B. Mehta ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.987 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.990 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Bhushan Mehta ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1008 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 22, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Smt.Madhumatiben K. Doshi, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1052 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Harakchand L. Savla ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1269 OF 2009 AND 2 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1270 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Deepak U. Gandhi, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1337 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Jagdish M. Thakur ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1418 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Bhagwan R. Aswani ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1419 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Ramesh R. Aswani ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1420 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 17, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Ishwar R. Aswani ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1461 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Ghansyam K. Bhavsar ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1465 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Amit Rayshi Karia ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1479 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Rajesh K. Mehta ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1633 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23, Mumbai ..Appellant. 3 Versus Lajwanti H. Thakur ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1662 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Pravin K. Gohil ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1685 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Sunmukhrai A. Bhayani (HUF) ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1773 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Uttamchand Gandhi HUF ..Respondent. Appearance for Appellants : Mr.Suresh Kumar – ITXA Nos.691, 1008, 1269, 1270, 1461, 1465, 1662/09, Mr.N.A. Kazi – ITXA (L) No.809/09, Ms.Suchitra Kamble in ITXA (L) Nos.927, 987, 990, 1479, 1633 & 1773/09, Mr.P.S. Sahadevan in ITXA (L) Nos.839/09, Mr.A.S. Shivsaran in ITXA (L) No.1052/09, Ms.Anamika Malhotra in ITXA (L) No.1337/09, Mr.D.K. Kamwal in ITXA (L) Nos.1418, 1419, 1420/09, None in ITXA (L) Nos.1685/2009. Appearance for respondents : None in ITXA (L) Nos.839, 1008, 1052, 1269, 1270, 1337, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1461, 1465, 1479, 1633, 1662, 1685 & 1773 of 2009, Mr.Jitendra Singh in ITXA (L) No.691/09, Mr.Atul K Jasani in ITXA (L) No.809/09, Mr.R.Murlidharan i/by Joy Legal in ITXA (L) No.927, 987, 990/09, CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. These appeals are 4 directed against the order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal relying upon its decision in the case of Mini Exports and/or Kartik Exports owned by Kamal Kumar Johri and Hari Om Sharma and/or Galaxy Exports held that so long as the VDIS Certificate issued under the VDIS, 1997 is holding the field, it is not open for any of the authorities created under the Act, to go behind the certificate and canvass a contention contrary to the certificate issued under the VDIS. We had an occasion to consider similar question in Income Tax Appeal No.634 of 2009 (CIT V/s. Uttamchand Jain) decided on 2-7-2009, wherein we have concurred with the said view of the tribunal. 2. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, the tribunal has recorded finding that the transaction of sale of jewellery declared under VDIS 1997 is a genuine sale transaction and that no efforts were made by the revenue authorities to show that the sale transactions were not genuine. The appeals filed by the revenue against the decisions of the Tribunal deleting the additions in the case of Kamal Kumar Johri and / or Hari Om Sharma and/or Galaxy Exports have already been dismissed by this Court for want or removal of office objections and/or in default long back and no steps have been taken to restore the said appeals. As a result, the decisions of the Tribunal in these cases have attained finality. In any event, the decision of the Tribunal in the cases before us that the sale transactions are genuine transactions is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. This being a finding of fact, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in these appeals. 3. For the reasons recorded above as well as the reasons recorded in the case of Uttamchand Jain (Supra), the appeals are dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)