: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.385 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2. ..Appellant. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The question of law as framed is as under. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in confirming the order of the CIT (A) quashing the proceedings initiated U/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act,. It noted the 1961?" 2. The CIT in its order noted that the firm had disclosed all the material facts fully and truly in its return of income. It noted the disclosure made in the note attached to the annual accounts which formed the part of the return of income. On this basis CIT came to the conclusion that there are no reasons to issue notice under Section 147/148 of the Act. 3. It was sought to be contended that it is only that material which the Assessing Officer could discover with :2: due diligence and then that could be said to be material on record and available. The said aspect was dealt with by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal also relied on the Judgment of this court in Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, 252 ITR 673. The learned Tribunal while confirming the finding recorded by CIT(A) specifically held that the note was attached with the return and it could not be said that the Assessing Officer could not have formed the opinion, during the course of original assessment, on the information provided by the assesses. 4. This is purely a finding of fact. Considering the above, the question of law as framed would not arise. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)