The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iinashik v. Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal (Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IINashik APPELLANT VERSUS Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal (HUF) RESPONDENT Mr.D.V.Soman, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dighe h/f. Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for respondent. (CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ.) DATE : 23/01/2014 PER COURT: 1.Heard learned Advocate Mr.Soman, appearing on behalf of the appellant on the earlier occasion and even today. We have perused with his assistance the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. That appeal was directed against the order dated 28/01/2008 of the said Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Division - 2 Nashik. From reading of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has, on two counts, reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and by allowing the appeal of the Revenue to that extent. Equally, partly allowing the appeal and not interfering with the findings of the C.I.T. (Appeals) on the issue of unrecorded investment made in construction of the property, the I.T.A.T. Has not committed any error of Law or perversity. The C.I.T. has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons. The question of Assessee, agreeing to the amount not being declared in the return, has been considered by the C.I.T.(Appeals) not only by taking into account the version of the assessee but that of the Revenue. On considering the factual position, the finding recorded by the C.I.T. (Appeals) has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. That is because of the absence of a direct evidence to suggest the cost of construction being Rs.375/- per sq.feet. To our mind, when the Revenue has succeeded to a great extent and on the issue where it could not succeed, there are findings of fact, which are consistent with the material placed on record, then, there is no substantial question of law arising for determination and consideration in this appeal. The question of Law, as are framed, cannot be said to be substantial. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merits, hence dismissed. No costs.