1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.46/2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ........ APPELANT. VERSUS M/S. AISHA CONSTRUCTIONS. ....... RESPONDENT. Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 31st March, 2008. P.C.:- We have heard the Counsel for the appellant. There is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration of the Court, in the present case. Thus, coming to a different conclusion on the basis of the said record, is not a question of law, much less the substantial question of law. In paragraph 8, the ITAT has observed thus : “ 8. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is crystal clear that the search has not brought out any materials to establish any undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee in so far as it related to the disallowance of interest expenditure. What in fact the Assessing Office has done in these two cases is that, he has made a review of 2 the case which was already examined by him in past. He has made a re-examination of the same details, which were already available before him. The question of admissibility of the interest expenditure need not be matter of block assessments, as those particulars were otherwise very much available with the assessee even before the search and very much known to the Department.” These findings are primarily findings of facts, upon appreciation of evidence. It is settled principle of law that findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal are not subjected to interference by the High Court. The discretion has been exercised and we see no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE ssm.