:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.275 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. Kedar Enterprises. ..Respondent. Mr.R.G.Bhat with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Arun Sathe, Sr.Counsel with Mr. Mandar Vaidya and P. Naik for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 24th March,2008. PC : 1. The questions of law are framed in Para-4 of the appeal memo. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the CIT was allowed. The revenue aggrieved preferred appeal before the ITAT. In so far as first question is concerned, the learned Tribunal on considering the evidence on record held in favour of the assessee that assessee had received cash from the parties mentioned in Para-3 who were not supposed to advance such amounts to the assessee towards development rights. This is purely a finding of fact. Apart from that, though the Tribunal has given different reasons, there are two concurrent findings of fact in favour of the assessee. In our opinion, therefore, the question of law-A as framed would not arose. 2. In so far as Question -B is concerned, the matter pertains to disallowance of administrative expenses. :2: The Tribunal found that there was no merit in the contention advanced by the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) also in favour of the assessee. Considering the above, in our opinion, the question of law as framed would not arise. Hence, appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)