IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 224 OF 2006. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 224 OF 2006. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 224 OF 2006. A. K. Bhaiya & Co. ..Appellant. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-36. ..Respondent. Mr K. Gopal, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr A. S. Shivsaran, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. In the above appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 10,38,655/- made by the Assessing Officer merely on suspicion without refuting the evidence produced by the assessee? 3. We have perused the order of the C.I.T.(A) as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 31.1.2006. The Tribunal has quoted extensively the reasons adopted in paragraph 5 of the order of the C.I.T. (A), and has clearly concurred with the findings. 4. The Tribunal has recorded its findings in paragraph 8 which read as under: "We have heard both the parties. The fact that the assessee firm had not paid any advance tax on the income earned by it in the first week of the financial year proves that assessee has no intention to pay the advance tax. The assessee had not paid any margin money to M/s Dolia & Dolia of Madras. This is the first transaction with the said party and it was admitted by the assessee it had not provided any security to M/s Dolia & Dolia to carry out such huge financial transactions. The CIT (A) has given a well reasoned findings and the assessee has not been able to controvert the same. We agree with the findings of learned C.IT (A). The first to fifth grounds are dismissed." 5. In view of the aforesaid findings, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 6. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. In view of the aforesaid categorical findings of fact, there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)