-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax-City 7. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s. Sidhvan Yarns Ltd. ... Respondent. .... Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2008. : 25TH JUNE, 2008. : 25TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Question of law as prayed in paragraph 4 of the Appeal Memo. On the perusal of the questions framed we find that they are purely questions of fact as to whether the assessee claimed higher consumption of raw material. 2. From the order of the Tribunal, we find that the order passed by CIT(A) has been recorded. The CIT(A) has held that "the Assessing Officer has not given any adverse comments on this comparison even in the remand report as discussed above." The learned Tribunal further held that ITO had to give a specific finding in which case it was not done. -:2:- 3. The Appeal is purely based upon the findings of fact. The question of law as prayed does not arise and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)