: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.297 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri. Kishore N. Amarchand. ..Respondent. Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.P.J.Pardiwale with Mr. Nilesh Joshi and S.G.Lakhani for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 28TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question of law. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,75,12,500/- made as deemed income u/s. 69 of the I.T.Act, on the ground that the revenue failed to establish that the shares belonged to the assessee, even though in law, under section 132(4A) the presumption was that any document found in the possession or control has to be treated as belonging to the assessee and it was for the assessee to rebut the presumption? 2. From the order of the Tribunal we find that the Tribunal set out the facts in favour of the revenue and the facts in favour of the assessee. In so far as :2: assessee is concerned, the Tribunal recorded that the assessee is a share broker. The entries of the shares were found recorded in books of account maintained by him in his capacity as broker and the sale proceeds have been paid to either M/s. ASS or to others as per the directions of ASS. The Tribunal also noted the following finding recorded by Commissioner (Appeals). "From the above facts, it prima facie appears that these shares which were also introduced by the appellant in the floor of the exchange in the name of M/s. Asian Stock & Securities Ltd., New Delhi in April 1993 were also the benami shares of the Harshad Mehta Group." 3. In our opinion, considering the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals ) that these shares of M/s. ASS are benami shares of the Harshad Mehta Group, the income could not have been assessed in the hands of the respondent. There is purely a finding of fact. There is nothing brought our attention that the findings of fact are incorrect and perverse and therefore, question of law as framed would not arise. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)