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. 116 OF 2006. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 116 OF 2006. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 116 OF 2006. M/s Malik & Sons ..Appellant. Vs The Income-tax Officer, ..Respondent. Mr F. B. Andhyarujina, Sr Advocate with M. Subramaniam i/b V.S. Hadade, Addocate for the Appellant. Ms Anuradha Mane, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. In the above appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following two substantial questions of law: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming that the provisions of Section 68 are applicable in respect of advances received during the course of business? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition made to the extent of Rs. 21,15,015/- as on account of unexplained cash credits? 3. We have perused the original assessment order, the order passed by the first Appellate Authority viz. the order of the C.I.T.(A) as well as the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8.9.2005. All the three Authorities have concurrently held that the Appellant has received advances towards sale of goods. The first Appellate Authority has dealt with the arguments raised by the assessee extensively running into 20 pages. The first Appellate Authority has observed that credit entry to the extent of Rs. 1,85,000/- appearing in the name of M/s Standard Rolling & Engineering Pvt Ltd has duly been explained by the assessee and this amount is required to be deleted. 4. In view of the aforesaid findings, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 5. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. In ( 3 ) view of the aforesaid categorical findings of fact, there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)