: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 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2007 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1176 OF 2007 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1179 OF 2007 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2007 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1012 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax-9. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Trambak Polypack Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain i/by S.M. Mohamedbhai for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. These four appeals except appeal Lodging No.1012 of 2005 are on board. Wealth Tax Appeal Lodging No.1012 of 2005 is also called for and taken up for hearing as all of them raised a common question of law. The question raised reads as under. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in confirming the order of CWT(A)-IX, wherein the learned CWT (A) had directed the Assessing Officer to take the value of the property after deduction under Section-2(m) of the Act at Rs. Nil in stead of Rs.17,31,60,000/-? :2: 2. The contention of the respondent was that the property included in the work in progress was stock in trade. That contention was rejected. Another contention was that considering Section-2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, the respondent should be assessed for net wealth accordingly. Both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal on the facts on record have concurred that considering the definition of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act the liability of the respondent for wealth tax is Nil. 3. Considering that this is purely a finding of fact, the question of law as framed would not arise and consequently the appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)