- (1.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset frankly submitted that so far as question No. 1 proposed by the appellant in this appeal is concerned, it is already covered and answered by this Court in identical case against the appellant (Revenue) by the order dated 27.01.2009 passed in a bunch of appeals led by DB Income Tax Appeal No. 4/2009: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gajsinghpur.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid, so far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is not necessary to decide the same on merits in terms of order dated 27.01.2009 passed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner v. KUMS, Gajsinghpur (supra). The reasons and conclusions arrived at in that appeal shall equally apply so far as answer to question No. 1 of this appeal is concerned. Learned Counsel for the appellant then contended that proposed question No. 2 does arise for consideration.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant on this question and on perusal of the record of the case and keeping in view the finding recorded by the Tribunal, we find that the question No. 2 as proposed does not come in the purview of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act because in our opinion, it is a pure question of fact and not a question of law much less a substantial one. The issue involved in question No. 2 essentially relates to certain expenditure incurred by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. It was rightly decided by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal in favour of the assessee on facts. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to admit the appeal by framing any substantial question of law on such an issue which really does not arise for consideration in this appeal.;