IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 36 OF 2006 Anuradha A. Vaidya Appellant Vs Assist. Commissioner of Income-Tax ... Respondent Circle 2(2), Pune Mr. S. N. Inamdar, for the appellant. Mrs. Devki Iyer, for the respondent. CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, & V. C. DAGA, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008. P.C.: ---- . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant is seeking to raise following questions of law- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal’s conclusion that the Appellant has failed to discharge the onus with regard to genuiness of the gift is perverse, not based on any material and ignoring the evidence on record is unsustainable in law? - 2 - 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s conclusion that commission of 10% must have been paid for "such bogus gifts" was perverse & contrary to facts on record & based on mere surmises & conjectures is unsustainable in law? 2. Perusal of the judgment of the ITAT dated 26th August 2005 shows that the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its order has explicitly made clear that the assessee did not have the telephone number or even address of the donors and they were not related to the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, and there is no merit in the above appeal as the order of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, and as such there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [ V.C. DAGA, J.] [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]