MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-..Appellant Vs. M/s.Chaudhary Engineer. ...... ..Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, with Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 25TH MARCH, 2008 DATED: 25TH MARCH, 2008 DATED: 25TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Revenue has preferred the appeal on the following two questions :- "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal had material to come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs.14,83,815/- could not be treated as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,13,647/- by the CIT (A) on account of unproved expenses from two traders viz. M/s.Olkey Trading Corporation and M/s. Jabeen Traders on account of unproved purchase by holding that the additions were made without verifications, ignoring the evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer, during the course of the Assessment proceeding and the remand proceeding, total relying on the submissions made by the Assessee before the CIT (A), which were contrary to the facts on record." 2. In so far as question (a) is concerned in the matter of expenditure in the sum of Rs.14,83,815/- the witnesses were examined and the A.O. himself in the remand report accepted that the payments are genuine. The C.I.T. (A) while allowing the Appeal accepted the payments on the basis of the demand made. The Tribunal has confirmed the said findings. These are purely findings of fact and the question of law as framed would not arise. 3. In so far as question (b) is concerned the issue has been dealt with in para.7 of the impugned order. The C.I.T. (Appeals) based on the evidence produced held that the Assessing Officer has not followed the proper procedure before disallowing the purchase and accordingly held that the additions cannot be made. The learned Tribunal considering the finding of fact and the assessee was doing the work for B.M.C. confirmed the said finding of facts. These are purely findings of fact. The question (b) as framed also would not arise. In the light of the above Appeal dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)