Judgment ( 1. ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the composite order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore on July 12, 2004. ( 2. ) I. T. A. No. 116 of 2004 was for the assessment year 1997-98, whereas I. T. A. No. 117 of 2004 is also for the same assessment year 1997-98. The appeals before the Tribunal were also preferred by the Revenue only against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). Since common questions were formulated the appeals were taken up for hearing together by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee has also filed cross-objections, but during the course of hearing the said cross-objections were not pursued ; hence they were dismissed. ( 3. ) BEFORE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, the Revenue assailed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 4,00,000 in I. T. A. No. 404/ind of 2000 with regard to M/s. Manjeet Fibers and Rs. 3,50,000 in I. T. A. No. 382/ind of 2000 in the matter of Bhupendra Singh Rajpal (HUF), on account of estimated income by the Assessing Officer. That the entire income of the assessee was duly audited for the year 1997-98 and was disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, return of the income was not filed as required under Section 139 (1) of the Act. The assessee decided to disclose the entire current income based on the audit report under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. Though nil income was shown in the return of income filed by both the assessees on January 19, 1998, the Assessing Officer estimated the income for the assessment year 1997-98 at Rs. 4,00,000 in the matter of M/s. Manjeet Fibers, on which the assessee also paid advance tax of Rs. 81,000. Similarly in the matter of Bhupendra Singh Rajpal the Assessing Officer estimated the income for the assessment year 1997-98 at Rs. 3,50,000 on which the advance tax was paid by this assessee too. ( 4. ) AGAINST these orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax accepted the returns of the assessees under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme but directed that the advance tax already paid shall not be refunded to the assessees. ( 4. ) AGAINST these orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax accepted the returns of the assessees under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme but directed that the advance tax already paid shall not be refunded to the assessees. Against this order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal. In the said appeals the assessees also preferred cross-objections by which the prayer for refund of advance tax was refused by the Commissioner, but during the course of hearing before the Tribunal the said cross-objections were not pressed. ( 5. ) NOW, the only question is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in accepting the returns of the assessee, which were filed beyond the period of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has assigned the reasons for accepting the returns of the assessee on January 19, 1998, whereas the Scheme had come to an end on October 30, 1997. It is also not in dispute that the said period was extended by the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, up to March 31, 1998. Thus computing the date of filing of the returns by the assessees, the same were obviously filed much before the extended period. Thus the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) committed no error in accepting the returns but refusing to grant any relief to the assessee with regard to refund claim by the assessee. ( 6. ) AGAINST such an order passed by the Tribunal, which is now based on findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Thus, this and the connected appeal are dismissed, at this stage itself. ( 7. ) A copy of this order be placed in the record of the connected file.