*1* 13.itxa514.12 sbw IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.514 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax 16 ..Appellant Versus Mrs. Rachana Sanjay Goenka ..Respondent ...... Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. R. Murlidhar with A. K. Jasani for Respondent. ....... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2014 P.C.: 1] We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, appearing for Revenue in support of this Appeal and which challenges order dated 18 th November, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.181/Mum/2009. assessment year is 2005 06. Commissioner of Income Tax and Assessing Officer held that income of Rs.77,12,025/ from sale of investments in shares is profits of business and not short term capital gains. 2] Mr. Suresh Kumar invited our attention to finding of Assessing Officer and reasons assigned by him at paras 7 to 9 of 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2020 14:22:28 ::: *2* 13.itxa514.12 order. He also invited our attention to findings recorded by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3] Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that approach of Tribunal results in this Appeal raising substantial question of law. In that regard, our attention is invited to para 7 of order of Tribunal. 4] Having perused all these orders, we are of opinion that Tribunal has interfered with concurrent findings of fact because it found that Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has gone by volume of transactions to conclude that Assessee is trader. Tribunal has found out from entire record as to whether Assessee can be termed as such. long term capital gains by selling of certain shares held for considerable period of time have been referred to so as to analyze other transactions. Tribunal's findings and after referring to contract notes would go to show that it has not agreed with conclusion of Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It has assigned reasons as to why it cannot agree. As last fact finding authority, Tribunal was entrusted with responsibility and duty of re appraising and re appreciating factual materials. That is precisely what it has done and after analyzing transactions in their entirety, concluded that Assessing Officer was wrong in concluding that frequency of transactions was very high. 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2020 14:22:28 ::: *3* 13.itxa514.12 reasons assigned, therefore, do not raise any substantial questions of law. They are consistent with factual material placed before Tribunal. Appeal does not raises any substantial questions of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2020 14:22:28 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-16 v. Rachana Sanjay Goenka