:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2672 OF 2005 IN WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.891 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Sanman Distributors Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Ms. Yogini Gawale i/by Roys Law Firm for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. There is delay of 4 days. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) :2: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.891 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Sanman Distributors Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Ms. Yogini Gawale i/by Roys Law Firm for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question. "The ITAT failed to appreciate that the write off in the books of the lender of the respondent and the conduct of the lender and the respondent is ample proof that the liability is no longer in existence in substance but exists only in form." 2. The learned Tribunal on considering the contentions and the submissions advanced did not agree with the contention of the respondent that the respondent has satisfied that the premises were used for business. However, on the issue before us recorded the finding as under. :3: "We find force in the contention of assessee regarding liability on flat.Even if liability has been compounded at end of BDA Ltd. it does not mean that assessee has no liability. It is commercial decision of assessee to honour his liability. Even provisions of Limitation Act does not come in way if assessee went to clear his time barred liability in the interest of his business". 3. Considering the finding that there is liability and nothing has brought before us to show that the said finding is perverse, the question of law as framed would not arise. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)