-1_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.890 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-9: Appellant v/s M/s. Siddhi Construction Ltd. : Respondent Mr. J.S. Saluja Advocate for Appellant None for respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 27.8.2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In the above, the appellant is seeking to raise the following question of law. A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee company is not obliged to discharge its onus of proving that the source of increase in the share capital was genuine, although it was given several opportunities? . Perused paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2006, & specially for the reasons stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 it is explicitly clear that assessee had furnished all the relevant details before the C.I.T.(A) who had asked the Assessing -2_ Officer to consider the same. Finally in paragraph 5 of the ITAT’s order there is a clear finding of fact that all complete details of persons in whose account the share capital was increased, was filed. All details whereof are reflected in the said paragraph. . In the light of the aforesaid finding of fact, there is no substantial question of law, but only a matter of finding of fact. Hence the Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr.S. Radhakrishnan,J) -3_ -4_ -5_ -6_ -7_ -8_ -9_ -10_ -11_ -12_ -13_ -14_ -15_ -16_ -17_ -18_ -19_ -20_ -21_ -22_ -23_ -24_ -25_ -26_ -27_ -28_ -29_ -30_ (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)