(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.702 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant Vs. Mrs. Hansa Motasha & Ors. ....Respondents Mrs. Anuradha Mane, for the Appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED: 13th April, 2009 DATED: 13th April, 2009 DATED: 13th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Revenue is in appeal on the following questions:- "A. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law any adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee from the paper found in the premises of the firm of the Assessee. B. Whether the excess jewellery which has been shown by the partners of the firm who in fact earn the money can be bifurcated and shown that it is for the renovation of the house and on purchase of jewellery. In so far as the first question is concerned, both (-2-) the C.I.T. (A) and ITAT have held that loose paper was found not from the assessee, but from some other premises of the firm where the husbands were partners. Both the CIT (A) and ITAT have gone into that issue and have held that the same cannot be held against the assessee. These are purely findings of fact. 2. In so far as jewellery is concerned, there are again two concurrent findings of fact that the jewellery is in terms of what has already been explained and no jewellery was found in the course of search. Considering that these are two concurrent findings of fact, in our opinion, the questions of law as framed would not arise. 3. There is no merits in this Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)