ORDER 1. These appeals by the Revenue relate to entitlement to set-off under Section 78(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of losses sustained in the proprietary business carried on by Madhukant M, Mehta against the income of the assessee, a registered partnership firm. These appeals relate to Assessment Years 1965-66 to 197172, In relation to Assessment Years 1965-66 to 1969-70, the matter was considered by the Gujarat High Court in its judgment dated 12-8-1980 in Income Tax Reference No. 115 of 1975 whereby the following questions referred to it for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was succession by inheritance in this case as contemplated by Section 78(2) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off the deceased Shri Madhukant M. Mehtas loss in business against the income for these years? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 75(2) of the Act does not prevent the assessee from claiming the set-off of the losses in question?" 2. Civil Appeals Nos. 94 to 98 (NT) of 1982 have been filed by the Revenue against the said decision of the High Court on the basis of the certificate of fitness granted under Section 261 of the Act. The said judgment was followed by the High Court in its judgment dated 14-8-1980 in Income Tax Reference No. 121 of 1977 in relation to Assessment Years 1970-71 and 1971-72. Civil Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 (NT) of 1982 have been filed against the said judgment. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Madhukant M. Mehta was carrying on proprietary business of speculation in shares, cotton and other commodities. He died on 23-3-1964 leaving behind his widow, a son and a daughter. On 22-4-1964, the three heirs of Madhukant M. Mehta entered into a partnership and executed a partnership deed wherein they agreed to carry on the said business of speculation. In the said speculation business carried on in the name of the partnership firm . He died on 23-3-1964 leaving behind his widow, a son and a daughter. On 22-4-1964, the three heirs of Madhukant M. Mehta entered into a partnership and executed a partnership deed wherein they agreed to carry on the said business of speculation. In the said speculation business carried on in the name of the partnership firm . profits were earned and the assessee sought to carry forward and set off the losses incurred by the deceased in his proprietary business against the income from the speculation business of the partnership firm. The Income Tax Officer disallowed such set-off on the ground that there was no succession to the business of the deceased. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals med by the assessee but further appeal the Tribunal allowed the set-off. The Tribunal found that there was succession to the business of the deceased 00 the basis of the following circumstances: "( The partnership deed which was drawn up on 22-4-1964. within a month of the death of the deceased. records the fact of the parties thereto as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. and having succeeded to and carried on the speculation business of the deceased. This claim of the assessee having carried on the speculation business even prior to the date of the partnership deed had not been disputed. Even if the date of the partnership deed is assumed to be the date from which the business had been carried on under the partnership deed, there was an interval of less than one month between the death of the deceased and the date from which the assessee had carried on the business and such interval even reckoning the partnership to have commenced from the date of the deed of partnership could not be regarded as long or onusual in a case where succession is claimed to have taken place by inheritance on the death of the deceased. (ii) The nature of the business was ideotical. namely. speculation business, which was being carried on by the deceased. (iii) The business name continued to be the same. (iv) The business was carried on in the same premises. (v) The same telephone which was being used by the deceased also continued to be used by the assessee. (vi) The constituents of the assessees business were the same as those of the business of the deceased. (iii) The business name continued to be the same. (iv) The business was carried on in the same premises. (v) The same telephone which was being used by the deceased also continued to be used by the assessee. (vi) The constituents of the assessees business were the same as those of the business of the deceased. (vii) The partnership deed clearly evidenced the intention of the legal heirs who coostituted the assessee fion to continue and carry on the business which was carried on by the deceased." 4. The Tribonal held that the partners. as heirs. had succeeded to the business of the deceased and there was inheritaoce for the purpose of Section 78(2) of the Act. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal had been accepted by the High Court. The High Court had observed: At the risk of repetition, it might be stated that the Tribunal has found in the instant case that there was no dispute that even prior to the execution of the partnership deed, the three heirs had carried on the same speculation business and that the partnership was brought ioto existence within about a month of the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has further found that even after the partnership was brought into existence, the business was continued the same name and in the same premises and the constituents of the assessees business were the same as those of the business of the deceased. It has been found earlier that during the interval of time between the death of the deceased and the formation of the partnership the outstanding recoveries were effected and the subsisting transactions were cleared and the assets of the business were utilized in business as Successors." 5. Shri Shukla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, in support of the appeals, has invited Our attention to the decision of this Court in Saroj Aggarwal v. C/TI wherein this Court has dealt with the question regarding applicability of Section 78(2) of the Act in the context of succession to the business of a deceased partner in the partnership. In that case this Court has approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bai Maniben2 wherein the High Court has observed that the conclusion of the Tribunal as to whether there was succession by inheritance is one of a question of fact. 6. In that case this Court has approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bai Maniben2 wherein the High Court has observed that the conclusion of the Tribunal as to whether there was succession by inheritance is one of a question of fact. 6. Having regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that the partners, as heirs, had succeeded to the business of the deceased, which finding has been accepted by the High Court in the present case, we are of the opinion that in the facts of these cases no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.