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. 921 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 921 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 921 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central III, Mumbai. ...Appellant V/s. M/s.Hathway Investments Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.Vimal Gupta i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the Appellant. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2008 DATED : JUNE 23, 2008 DATED : JUNE 23, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The question of law framed in this appeal on behalf of the department reads as under :- "Whether Order passed @ 100% on certain assets purported to have been purchased and leased back without examining the claim of the assessee was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, CIT was right in invoking the provisions of Section 263 on this issue?" - 2 - 3. The Tribunal had decided this, on facts and while referring to the judgments of this Court including 220 ITR 456 and other judgments, in favour of the assessee and against the department. According to the appellant, it is the scope of 263 which calls for consideration and therefore, the question of law. 4. We are unable to accept this contention. The question of law in the appeal alleged to be arisen in the present case is primarily the question of fact and no reasons, therefore, are seen. 5. Appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.