1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2617 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Raj Soya Exports and Investment Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 8th January, 2010. P.C.: 1. Two questions of law have been framed in the appeal filed by the revenue against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22nd February, 2006 : "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Explanation to Sec. 73 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not applicable to the loss of Rs.19,75,775/- claimed by the assessee in share transactions? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the 2 case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.13,45,385/- holding it as agricultural income exempt?” 2. The Assessment Year in question is 1996-97. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that the CIT (A) had merely remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for verifying the factual aspects of the matter and that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT (A). A perusal of the order of the CIT (A) dated 24th December, 1999 would show that the ground on which an order of remand was passed was that the reason on account of which losses had arisen had not been looked into by the assessing officer. The proceedings were therefore restored to the file of the assessing officer to consider the claim of the assessee after due verification. Ex facie, the order of the CIT (A) does not contain any finding on the applicability or otherwise of the explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since there has been no adjudication on that aspect, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the appeal on the question of law as framed. 3 3. The second question pertained to the deletion of an addition of Rs.13,45,385/- which the assessee had declared as agricultural income. The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that the details which were furnished before the assessing officer sufficiently prove that the assessee was cultivating the land and that sugarcane was grown on it. The Tribunal has also dealt with the aspect that the receipts stood in the name of one of the directors of the company. This aspect has also been considered by the Tribunal which has held that the director had not himself disclosed any agricultural income in his individual capacity. Consequently, the second question as formulated does not raise any substantial question of law and involves only a pure finding of fact. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the appeal which does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)