-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1115 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-Tax ) Mumbai City – IX Mumbai ).. Appellant Versus M/s Pix Auto Ltd. ).. Respondents None present for the Appellant. Mr. M. Subramanian a/w Mr. V.S. Hadade for the Respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & V. M. KANADE, J. DATE: 4TH JULY 2008. P.C. Nobody is present on behalf of the Appellant. 2. The Appellant is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10th May 2004. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the purchase of machinery made by the asseseee from M/s. Pix Transmission Ltd. Keeping in view the lease agreement and acceptance of transaction, a sum of Rs.2.55 lakhs was to be paid in installments. Affirming the findings recorded by the -2- CIT Appeals, the Tribunal further noticed that findings were findings of facts and were drawn on the basis of the Assessing Officer's demand report which report was found to be justified and in accordance with law. Even the revenue impact may be inconsequential in terms of the order of the Tribunal. On these premises, the following question of law is suggested in the Appeal :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in allowing the claim of depreciation as claimed by the assessee wherein the Assessing Officer had held that the transaction of purchase/sale and lease back of the machinery/moulds were sham transaction ? 3. We are of the considered view that this above question is not a question of law much less a substantial question of law. This relates to mere appreciation of evidence. Two concurrent findings have been recorded by the authorities below. We see no reason in the Appeal. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE -3- V. M. KANADE, J.