-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1038 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-12 : Appellant v/s M/s. Amol Paper Syndicate : Respondent Mr. R.A. Vaishampayan for Appellant Mr. Rajeev Waglay a/w Mr. B.G. Tangsali for Respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 8.9.2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. In the above appeal following questions of law are involved. a)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of suppression of stock? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in ignoring the specific provisions of section 132(4A)(ii) of the I.T. Act and in accepting the stock as declared by the Respondent, without appreciating that the Respondent accepted the addition made in the assessment and filed a petition under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 for relief under the said scheme? . We have perused the judgment of Income Tax Tribunal dt. 29.5.2007 wherein in paragraph 1.2 the Tribunal has observed as under:- -2- "According to the CIT(A) nowhere it seems to have any under valuation of the actual stock and, thus, the difference added to the total income was not any rational or sound basis. Even in the Remand Report submitted by the Assessing Officer, there seems no answer to the issues raised by the CIT(A) and the direction given by the Tribunal. Once the stock registers available with the Department tallied with the inventory shown in the return of income for the assessment year 1989-90, there was no concrete evidence available to show that there was suppression of stock or otherwise. When there is nothing to show that the working papers which found formed the basis of addition were the inventory sheets and when the type of verification as required as per the directions of the authorities has not been carried out by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) was rightly viewed that the addition made on account of difference in closing stock amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- is not sustainable. Accordingly, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition in question. We hold the same." . In view of the above it is explicitly clear it is mere finding of fact. There is no substantial question of law involved in the above. Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)