1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2036 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Fortune Houseware Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. Suchitra Kamble for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 29TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. At the instance of the revenue, appeal is taken up for admission. 2. The first question sought to be raised in the appeal relates to deletion the addition of Rs.60,46,563/- made on account of bogus purchases since they could not response to he A.O.’s summons. Tthe Tribunal after considering the Apex Court’s judgment recorded the finding reading as under:- "The facts of the instant case are of all fours with that recently decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anish Ahmed & Sons Vs. CIT (2008) 297 ITR 441(SC) in which it has been held that no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee in respect of five parties out of ten who did not appear in response to the summons as the summons 2 remained unserved. It is further observed that the assessee has maintained complete quantity tally in respect of each item, the detail of which is available at pages 18 to 20 of the paper book. When the purchases by way of purchase bills were recorded in the books of account with value of quantity and if any party of such purchases remained unsold that was included in the closing stock, obviously there cannot be any question of treating such purchases as bogus. We therefore approve the view taken by the learned CIT(A)." 3. Having gone through the aforesaid findings, it is not possible to hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. In this view of the matter, the first question cannot be said to a substantial question of law. 4, So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has already discussed the same in paragraphs 4 & 5 of the impugned order and recorded findings of fact that the foreign visit of Shri Juneja was for the purpose of business. The above findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on the appreciation of evidence. We do not find any fault with the said order. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)