: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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4397 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2415 OF 2008 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2415 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-12. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Kedia Investment Corporation. ..Respondents. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2009. PC : 1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2415 OF 2008 2. In so far as appeal is concerned, following two questions are raised. (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. Tribunal was right in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs.5,.73,020/- without appreciating the fact that the learned CIT(A) XII had admitted additional information/evidence in the appeallate proceedings before him no opportunity was given to the AO as required :2: under Rule-46? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. Tribunal was right in directing the AO not to add the interest element on the interest free deposits received from the tenants while determining the rental value of the property? 2. In so far as Question (a) is concerned, the tribunal in Para-5 of its order has recorded the finding of fact that the chart was filed and was available before the Assessing Officer. Once that being the case, the grievance that the Assessing Officer has no opportunity of considering the material will not survive. 3. In so far as question (b) is concerned, the said question has been examined in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Investors (Bom.) Ltd. For the aforesaid reasons, the questions of law as framed would not arise. Consequently, appeal dismissed ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I.REBELLO, J.)