:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1192 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income tax-13. ...Appellant. Vs. Bombay Tools Supplying Agency. ...Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan i/by A.B. Shivsharan for the Appellant. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY,2009. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the questions referred in Paragraph-4 of the appeal memo. The questions A,C and E are the substantial questions of law. 2. In so far as Question-B is concerned, we find that there are two concurrent findings of fact. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the finding recorded by the CIT (appeal). This is purely a question of fact and therefore, question of law would not arise. . Question-D is concerned, the learned Tribunal has dealt with the same in Para-8 and 9 of his order. Even before us, nothing is bought before us to show that the findings are perverse and therefore, this question of law would not arise. Considering that, appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)