: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 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1020 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-9. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Shabayesha Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.R. Murlidhar with Mr. Darshan Mehta i/by Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 23rd March, 2009 PC : 1. Revenue is in appeal on the following question. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the entire addition of Rs.4,80,31,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I.T.Act and confirmed by the CIT(A)? 2. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail except to set out that the issue pertains to 11,436 shares of ACC Ltd. which were originally registered in the name of the assessee herein. The revenue moved an application before the Special Court to contend that those shares belonged to Harshad Mehta Group.The Special Court by order dated 13.3.1997 held that those shares belonged to the said group and were covered by the :2: provision of the Special (Trial of Offenders Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. On behalf of the assessee, the learned counsel does not claim right to the said shares. 3. Under Section-(9)(a) of the Special Courts Act the Special Court had jurisdiction to exercise powers of the civil court. In the instant case, the Special Court has held that the property belonged to Harshad Mehta Group. Once that be the case, by operation of that Act, the property stands attached in the hands of the custodian under the provisions of the said Act and to be dealt by the Special Court only. Once that be, a declaration that it is not the respondent assessee who is the owner of the shares but Harshad Mehta Group, we cannot find any fault in the order passed by the Tribunal. In the light of that, there is no merits in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)