IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.650 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-14 ..... Appellant V/s. M/s.Gini Silk Mills .....Respondent Mr.P.K.Kamwal, A.G.P., for the appellant. CORAM : SHRI P.B.MAJMUDAR & SHRI J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17th NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2624/M/04, which is in connection with the Assessment Year 1999-2000. Considering the question of assessment, the finding of fact recorded by CIT(A) has been approved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal while examining the issue has found that the books of accounts of the assessee were audited under Section 44AB and that CIT(A) has rightly found that no mistake was pointed out by the Assessing Officer, nor the books of accounts were rejected. The Assessing Officer has also not made any comparative study between the business of the assessee and other assessees of similar business. On examining the issue, the Tribunal has held in Para No.4, 5 & 6 as under : “4. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival contentions, we find that the books of account of the assessee were audited u/s.44AB and as rightly pointed by the CIT(A), the Assesing Officer has neither pointed out any mistake therein, nor rejected those books of account. The Assessing Officer has also not made comparative study between the business of the assessee and other assessees of similar business and has adopted the G.P. Of the earlier years. He did not even verify if the contention of the assessee that it had only sold the damaged and outdated cloth which has resulted in the gross loss was correct or not ? In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and this ground of appeal of the Revenue is therefore, rejected. 5. As regards Ground No.2, the brief facts are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has secured and unsecured loans of Rs.5.3 crores and 4.12 crores respectively and has also received loans of more than 10 crores from M/s.Blow Plast Industries Ltd. and M/s.V.I.P. Industries Ltd. He further observed that the assessee has also given an advances of more than 4.5 crores to the partners and their relatives. Thus, he held that these heavy loan transactions are not justified and are disproportionate to the activity of the assessee and disallowed the interest paid by the assessee of Rs.22,53,072 on the loans borrowed from outsiders. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance holding that the assessee has not given any interest free loans or advances to the partners or to any other parties and the interest paid was on borrowed loans, which were however, for business purpose of the assessee firm. Aggrieved the Revenue in appeal before us. 6. Having gone through the material on records, we find that the CIT(A) has perused the account copies of M/s.Blow Plat Industries Ltd. and M/s.V.I.P. Industries Ltd., and also the copies of partners account before coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not advanced any interest free loans to the partners or other parties. It is not for the Assessing Officer to say whether the borrowing of funds was justified or is disproportionate to the activity of the assessee. As long as the funds have been used for the business purposes of the assessee, the interest paid thereon cannot be disallowed. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and this ground of appeal of the revenue is rejected. 3. In our view, the finding of fact recorded by CIT(A) and which is confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal cannot be re-appreciated by this Court, as this appeal is maintainable only on substantial question of law. In our view, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error of law much less any substantial question of law, which requires interference by this Court in this appeal. We accordingly do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. ( J.P.DEVADHAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )