1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1953 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 6 July, 2010. P.C. : 1. Six questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1989-90. 2. As regards question (a), the expenditure involved was in the total sum of Rs.46,812/-. From the material on record the Tribunal followed the order for assessment year 1988-89. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue was not challenged in appeal and a statement to that effect is made before us by the Counsel for the Revenue. In that view of the matter, the first 2 question does not raise any substantial question of law. 3. As regards question (b), the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the re-routing of the pipeline was part of the existing pipeline because part of pipeline had to be replaced in view of the objection of the State Government. The Tribunal has also observed that no new asset as such was brought into existence. The entire pipeline had not been replaced. On this finding of fact, the finding that the expenditure incurred was of a revenue nature was justified. No substantial question of law is raised. 4. As regards question (c), the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in S.A. Builders V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax1. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has not attempted to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court nor is it the case of the Revenue that the facts of this case are different. In the circumstances no substantial question of law would arise. 5. As regards question (d), the Tribunal has observed that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax had reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- there being no intention to evade sales tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also observed that the assessee had not carried out business in an unlawful manner or in contravention with sales tax legislation but there was only an 1 288 ITR 1 (S.C.) 3 arithmetical error on the part of the dealing clerk. The total amount which was claimed was Rs.10,000/-. In this view of the matter, we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise. 6. As regards questions (e) and (f), Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that these issues are covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in companion Income Tax Appeal No.3025 of 2009. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)