JUDGMENT 1. Filing of certified copy of Tribunal's judgment is dispensed with. The defect stands removed. Let revision be registered with regular number and the old number shall also continued to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers. 2. As requested by learned counsel for the appellant, we proceed to hear and decide this appeal. 3. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate for appellant and perused the record. 4. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has arisen from the judgment and order dated 13.01.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellante Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A', Lucknow in ITA No. 648/LKW/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11). 5. It is contended that Tribunal has erroneously accepted yield of sugar at 8% though Assessing Officer estimated same at 9% and it is a substantial question of law. 6. However, we do not find the same as substantial question of law inasmuch as there are various factors having impact on yield of sugar by crushing sugarcane such as, whether sugarcane belong to very first year or second year; whether it was standing on field for long time; whether it was purchased by factory and kept for sometime and thereafter it was crushed and several other factors. 7. On the question of yield both parties placed their version thereupon initially Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took a particular view recording his finding of fact which has been modified by Tribunal exercising co-extensive power as that of Assessing Authority and taking a moderate view which is neither in complete acceptance of Assessee's stand nor that of Revenue's stand but in between, it has recorded its finding accepting yield of sugar at 8%. Assessment of evidence, taking a factual view in a particular manner by Appellate Court, exercising co-extensive power is nothing but a recording of finding of fact and unless it is shown that the same is perverse or some material evidence has been ignored or irrelevant material has been considered, it does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as it does not give rise to any substantial question of law.