1 itxa1822-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Tracstar Investment Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Mandar Vaidya i/by Roy's Law Firm for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. DATE : 20th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Two questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which reads thus : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s.14A of the IT Act of interest payment made u/s.14A of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee had diverted its funds in investment of exempt income i.e. shares? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that AY 1999-2000, similar issue was involved which was deleting by the CIT (A) and the revenue has not filed any appeal before the ITAT against the CIT (A)'s order which is factually incorrect when the revenue has filed the appeal before the ITAT against the said of the CIT (A) ? 2. As regards first question is concerned, Counsel for the parties 2 itxa1822-10 state that the said question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Question (a), therefore, cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. 3. As regards second question is concerned, Counsel for the Revenue states that the Tribunal has erroneously recorded a finding that the Revenue has not filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Tribunal, when in fact the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. This factual error, if any, can be rectified by the Tribunal, if a miscellaneous application is filed before the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, we do not deem it fit to consider the second question. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. 5. The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)