1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Khan Automobile ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 955 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Automobile Centre ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 954 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Mecloids garage ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 956 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Parkar Brothers ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 961 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Patco Auto Service ..Respondent INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 962 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 964 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Fort Motor Equipments Co. ..Respondent 2 Ms. Padma Divakar for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. In all these matters the assessee involved the question sought to be raised is identical based on similar facts. Hence, by consent of parties all these appeals are disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission. Substantial question of law reads as under: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified, in law, in upholding the order of the Ld.CIT (A) confirming the status of the assessee as “FIRM” as against “AOP” adopted by the Assessing Officer in The Block Assessment Order, despite there being ample evidence during search leading to the conclusion made by the Assessing Officer?” On perusal of question, the same is pregnant with the question of appreciation of evidence. We were taken to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, wherein, Tribunal has appreciated the factual aspects and recorded findings of fact that the status of the assessee as FIRM. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that, the present appeal relates to the block assessment years 01.04.1996 to 29.01.2003. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that in subsequent assessment years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 the assessee has been assessed as Firm. The appeals for subsequent years were dismissed being barred by limitation as such the said orders stood concluded. Under these circumstances, we find no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, therefore, appeal stands dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)