1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2255 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the Appellant. Mr.Parag Vyas with Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 21st January, 2010. P.C. : 1. The following question of law has been framed in the appeal by the revenue under Section 260A if the Income Tax Act, 1961 : a) “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon ble Tribunal is right in confirming the ’ order of Ld. CIT(A) and thereby allowing benefits to the assessee ignoring assessee s failure to rebut AO s conclusion by providing ’ ’ corroborative evidence to bifurcate the direct and consignment sales for computing commission at prescribed percentage?” 2. The question as framed would clearly show that no substantial question of law arises. The view taken by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 is a possible view. The CIT(A) had in paragraph 2.2 of his order noted that in terms of the agreement, commission was to be computed at 2% of the 2 consignment sales and hence the action of the assessing officer in computing the commission with reference to the total sales was not justified. The CIT(A) rendered a finding of fact which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)