-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2004 ALONG WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-3 ) Mumbai ).. Appellant Versus M/s Reliance Commercial Corporation ).. Respondent None present for the Appellant. Mr J.K. Mistry a/w Mr Raj Darak for the Respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & V. M. KANADE, J. DATE: 4TH JULY 2008. P.C. These Appeals were called out in the morning for hearing on admission. Nobody was present on behalf of the Appellant. Resultantly, they were kept back and have been recalled for hearing. Still nobody is present on behalf of the Appellant. 2. The Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10th May 2004. Vide the -2- 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 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 :- 3. Be that as it may, these Appeals are dismissed for default. While dismissing these Appeals for default for non-appearance, we may also notice that the question of law suggested in the present Appeals hardly subsist for consideration inasmuch as the same stand answered by the judgment of this Court in M/s J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd., 248 ITR 723, which has even been referred by the Tribunal in the impugned order. For the reasons afore-stated, these Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE -3- V. M. KANADE, J.