ORDER : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr.Dev Patel for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the opponent. 2.1. This Tax Appeal is remanded back by the Supreme Court vide order dated May 6, 2008 in Civil Appeal No.3343 of 2008 arising out of the S.L.P. (C) NO.14531 of 2007 whereby, the appellant revenue challenged the order dated 20th December, 2006 passed by this Court in this Tax Appeal dismissing the same on the ground that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned common order dated 09.11.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench ‘A’ in ITA No.2339/Ahd/2000 for Assessment Year 1997-98. The Tribunal has also decided the appeal being ITA No.2329/Ahd/2000 with CO No.78/Ahd/2003 for Assessment Year 1996-97 in case of M/s. Akalu Holdings Private Limited in the said common order. 2.2. The Tribunal decided ITA No.2329/Ahd/2000 as a lead matter and followed the reasoning in the ITA arising in the case of the respondent-assessee being ITA No.2339/Ahd/2000 for Assessment Year 1997-98. 2.3. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law in the Tax Appeal which was not admitted by this Court by order dated 20.12.2006 : “Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance of interest which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the purchase of shares was mainly for acquiring controlling rights in another company” 2.4. The order passed by this Court dated 20.12.2006 reads as under : “Heard Shri M.R.Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant -Revenue. The following substantial question of law is proposed for admission of this appeal. “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance of interest which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the purchase of shares was mainly for acquiring controlling rights in another company?” While considering the issue raised in the question, the Tribunal has considered the aspects as under : “4. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in one of the associate group concerns for the same Asstt. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in one of the associate group concerns for the same Asstt. Year 1996-97 in ITA No.867/Ahd/2001, ACIT vs. Ataku Holdings Pvt. Ltd. order dated 15.9.2003. Facts are similar, which is evident from the record that the name of this sister concern Ataku Holdings Pvt. Ltd., has been referred by the AO on page No.7, Para-(iv) of his order. The Tribunal allowed similar claim of interest as business expenditure by following observations. “6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned representatives of the parties and have gone through the orders of the learned Departmental Authorities. The facts relating to the aforesaid controversy have already been briefly stated hereinbefore. The learned CIT(A) has given very elaborated and convincing reasons while deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.3,14,928/-. He has also given convincing reasons to support his conclusion that the facts in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P) Ltd (supra) are clearly distinguishable as compared to the facts of the present case. The Memorandum of Association of the assessee company clearly shows that the main object of the company was to carry on the business of acquiring, holding and selling of shares and debentures. The assessee acquired the shares of NKL out of funds borrowed from M/s. AHPL, which was well covered within the main object clause of assessee's business as enumerated in the memorandum of Association. These shares were also sold in the next year. The assessee received income from dividend on these shares in the year under consideration. It is true that the dividend has been assessed under the head “income from other sources” by virtue of a special provision containing in the IT Act but such an income would still form part of income from the business carried on by the assessee. It may be relevant here to reproduce the extract from the Head Note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Cocanda Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (1963) 57 ITR 306 (SC) : “the scheme of the IT Act is that income tax is one tax. Section 6 of the IT Act, 1922, classifies the taxable income under different heads for the purpose of computation of the net income of the assessee. Section 6 of the IT Act, 1922, classifies the taxable income under different heads for the purpose of computation of the net income of the assessee. Though for the purpose of computation of the income, interest on securities is separately classified, income by way of interest from securities does not case to be part of income from business if the securities are pat of the trading assets. Whether a particular” income is pat of the income from a business falls to be decided not on the basis of the provisions of section 6 but on commercial principal. 6.1 A useful reference may also be also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cotton Fabrics Ltd. (1981) 131 ITR 99 (Guj.) in which it was held as under : “Held, (i) that though the total income of the assessee was in the course of its business, it deprived part of its income from dividends and computation of that income from dividends was to be done in accordance with the provisions of Ss.56 and 57. But the computation having been so done, ultimately it still formed part of the income of the business of the assessee and it was assessable as such as profits and gains of business carried on by the assessee. Under S.36, interest paid by an assessee for the purpose of carrying on its business was deductible in its entirely while computing profits and gains of the business and, therefore, it was not possible to allocate a portion of that interest as against income from dividends. (ii) That the entire amount of dividend earned by the assessee company from intercorporate dividends was the amount with reference to which relief under S.80 M had to be worked out. Section 80AA made no difference because no expenditure was incurred for the purpose of earning the amount of dividends. The expenditure incurred by way of payment of interest. The expenditure incurred by way of payment of interest. The expenditure incurred by way of payment of interest was incurred for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee and that had to be deducted in its entirely under S.36(1)(iii) while computing the income of the assessee for the purpose of profits and gains from business.” 6.2 The facts relating to the case of Ormerods (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (36-ITR-329 (Bom) are almost similar with the facts of the assessee's case the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the interest expenditure incurred on capital borrowed for purchase of shares was allowable as deduction under the corresponding provisions contained in the IT Act, 1992. The said judgment of the Bombay High Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as already stated herein before. The view taken by the CIT (A) is fully fortified by the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ormerods (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6.3 In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion and in view of the elaborate reasons given in the order of the CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the CIT(A) is perfectly valid and justified. Therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the view taken by him. The Revenue's Appeal, in my view, has no merit. 5. It was contended that facts and circumstances are similar, Tribunal in the case of Ataku Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has in detail explained case of Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was a case of acquisition of 100% control over the company against which, in the case of assessee, percentage of share acquired is very small. In assessee's case also main object of the company was to carry on the business of acquiring, holding and selling of shares and debentures, the Tribunal has rightly considered the case of the Ormerods (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth R. Dalmia Vs. CIT, 110 ITR 644 (SC) wherein Bombay High Court's decision has been quoted and approved as under : “Apart from these decision of this Court, a number of decision of the High Courts have also taken the same view. In Ormerods India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) 36 ITR(Bom), the Bombay High Court allowed certain sums of money paid as interest on borrowed capital for the purchase of shares and held that the word “purpose” in the expression “expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning such income, profits or gains” do not mean motive for the transaction, much less scan it mean ulterior motive or ulterior object. The Court held that as the investments were made for the purpose of deductible under Section 12(2) of the Act. ............ ............ In Commissioner of Income Tax v. H.H.Maharani Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi (1975) 100 ITR 67 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the deduction which is permissible under sub-section (2) of Section 12 is an expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning the income which has been subjected to tax and the dominant purpose of the expenditure incurred must be to tax and the dominant purpose of the expenditure incurred must be to earn income. It was further held that the connection between the expenditure and the earning of the income need not be direct, and even an indirect connection could prove the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income. We fully agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court.” It was contended that the case of Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the assessee's case, the case of Ormerods (India) Pvt. Ltd. is applicable, which has been duly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, findings of ITAT in the case of Ataku Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), a sister concern is fully applicable to the assessee's case, therefore, the same may be applied. It was further contended that in the subsequent years the assessee has entered into sale of these shares. In the alternate, it was pleaded that, in any case, if the interest is not allowed as business expenditure, then the same may be allowed to be capitalized towards cost of purchase of shares. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the alternate, it was pleaded that, in any case, if the interest is not allowed as business expenditure, then the same may be allowed to be capitalized towards cost of purchase of shares. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We are of the view that facts of the Akalu Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Aashini Lease Finance Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 1996-97 and 1997-98 are similar, the Tribunal has considered all aspects i.e. Memorandum of Association, acquisition of minor percentage of shares of group concerns, subsequent sale of shares, the case of Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been distinguished and the case of Ormerods (India) Pvt. Ltd has been applied, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of these facts, we hold that the assessee's case is covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT judgment in the case of Ataku Holdings Pvt. Ltd., a group concern, respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) allowing interest as business expenditure. Since we allow the claim of assessee, there is no necessity to go into alternate plea of the assessee. 7. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.” The CIT (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal both have found that borrowings were for the purpose of business. Whether the borrowings were for the purpose of business or not, is basically based on the finding of fact. Considering the concurrent finding of fact, we see no perversity in the order. No case is made out for admission of this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.” 2.5. The above order contains all the facts of the case and therefore the same are not repeated here wherein, the relevant observations of the Tribunal are also reproduced. 2.6. The aforesaid order of this Court was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated hereinabove. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order on May 6, 2008 : “None appears for the respondent, though served. Leave granted. These Civil Appeals are filed by the Department against the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20th December, 2006 in Tax Appeals No.918/2006 and 919/2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order on May 6, 2008 : “None appears for the respondent, though served. Leave granted. These Civil Appeals are filed by the Department against the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20th December, 2006 in Tax Appeals No.918/2006 and 919/2006. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the facts of the present case were similar to the facts in the case of Akalu Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Aashini Lease Finance Pvt. Ltd, in which the Tribunal has considered all aspects and has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the Department's appeals stood dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, these Civil Appeals. The short question which arose for consideration before the High Court was: Whether the acquisition of shares by the assessee was with the object of getting control over Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. (AEC) and, if so, whether interest paid by the assessee to M/s. Torrent Financiers was allowable as expenditure under Section 36 (1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? In this case, we are concerned with the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The AO found that borrowed funds were invested to acquire control of AEC. Accordingly, he disallowed the interest expenses under Section 36(1) (iii). This was on the footing that assessee had paid interests to Torrent Financiers and Torrent Leasing and Finance Private Limited (sister companies of the assessee). According to the order of assessment, borrowed funds were deployed by the assessee Company during the relevant year in order to purchase equity shares of AEC, which Company is subsequently taken over not by the assessee but by the Torrent Group. During the relevant year, the total investment made by the assessee in the take over and acquisition of business of AEC amounted to only Rs. 22,59,969/-. To this extent, there is no difficulty. The problem arises where the AO has detected that after acquiring the shares of AEC Ltd., the assessee herein has sold the shares of AEC at Rs. 63,57,925/-and further that subsequently, the said AEC Ltd, has been taken over and acquired by the Torrent Group, The record indicates, prima facie, that the assessee Company had acquired the shares of AEC through finánces arranged mainly from Torrent Group (sister companies) along with two other companies only to enable Torrent Group to acquire and take over the business of AEC. The question, therefore, which arose for consideration before the High Court was: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of interests paid by it to the Torrent Group? Prima facie, it appears to us that the High Court has lost sight of the above facts which, if proved and established, would indicate circular trading entered into solely with the idea of evading tax. This prima facie view is expressed only in support of our present order as relevant aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal and, therefore, the above reasons should not be taken as our conclusion. Therefore, in our view, the High Court had erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground that no substantial question of law arose for determination. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2006. We restore Tax Appeals Nos. 918/2006 and 919/2006 on to the file of the High Court with a direction to the High Court to dispose of these appeals in accordance with law. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.” 3.1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the Tribunal has not given any independent reasoning for this Tax Appeal but has followed the reasoning given in case of M/s. Akalu Holdings Private Limited (Supra) in ITA No.2329/Ahd/2000. It was submitted that the Tax Appeal No.935 of 2006 was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.2329/2000 before this Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2006 on the similar line. It was further pointed out that the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.9459 of 2010, however, due to low tax effect, the appeal filed by the Revenue was also dismissed. 3.2. It was therefore submitted that the reasoning given by the Tribunal in case M/s. Akalu Holdings Private Limited have to be applied in facts of the present case as the facts were identical and for same reasons, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 3.3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel submitted that as the Tribunal has not given independent facts in the case of the respondent-assessee in this appeal, the relevant facts may be gathered from the assessment order and the order of the CIT (Appeals). 3.3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel submitted that as the Tribunal has not given independent facts in the case of the respondent-assessee in this appeal, the relevant facts may be gathered from the assessment order and the order of the CIT (Appeals). Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel referred to the order of the Assessing Officer so far as the Tax Appeal No.918 of 2006 is concerned which relates to the assessment year 1997-98 wherein, the Assessing Officer has stated as under : “2. DISALLOWANCE OFINTEREST EXPENSES U/S. 36(1)(iii): (a) On borrowed funds invested in shares of AEC Ltd. to acquire control of AEC Ltd. During the year the assessee has claimed payment of interest of Rs.4,15,13,775/- to the concerns covered u/s.40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act as under:- (i) Torrent financiers - Rs.4,13,04,753/- (ii) Torrent lease & Fin. P. Ltd. - RS. 2,09,022/- On verification of details of the utilisation of funds borrowed from the above concerns it is found that the funds borrowed were utilised for investment in shares of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. in F.Y. 95- 96 (A.Y. 96-97) Further in assessment order for A.Y.95-96 it is also held that the investment made in these shares was not for business purpose but for acquiring control over the company Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited and so it was also held that the investment in these shares was not made for the purpose of the business of the assessee and so interest expenditure was held as not incurred for business purpose but as capital expenditure for acquiring controlling right over company. This finding is also on the basis of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of Surabnai & Sons Pvt. Ltd., V/s. CIT(1993) 201 ITA 471. In view of the detailed discussion made in the order of A.Y. 1996-97 the interest expenditure was not found allowable. As the facts of the case in this year are also same, discussion and findings given in the assessment order regarding same issue of interest expenditure is also held fully applicable to this year also. Therefore the assessee's claim of interest expenditure on the funds blocked in these shares is found assessment proceedings the Authorised Representative of the assessee company was asked to explain why the interest expenses should not be disallowed. In response to this the assessee company has submitted it's explanation vide letter dtd. 25.10.99. Therefore the assessee's claim of interest expenditure on the funds blocked in these shares is found assessment proceedings the Authorised Representative of the assessee company was asked to explain why the interest expenses should not be disallowed. In response to this the assessee company has submitted it's explanation vide letter dtd. 25.10.99. I have gone through the contention raised by the assessee which are similar to those raised during the assessment proceedings of A.Y. 96-97. Therefore as the facts are same, findings and discussion made in assessment order for A. Y.96-97 on this issue is held applicable to this year also and so assessee's contention is not accepted. Further the assessee has claimed in its reply as under:- "Without prejudice to the above contention we would like to bring to your notice that the company has sold the shares on 28.10.96 hence interest paid for the subsequent period should in any case be allowed. The interest if calculated on advances upto the date of sale of shares i.e. 28.10.96 it works out at Rs.24476566/- only" Further it is also undeniable hard fact that during the year the assessee company has sold these 16.16.1950 shares of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. for Rs.21,94,90,197/- to Torrent Investment Pvt. Ltd. which is also another investment company controlled by Torrent group. The assessee company has repaid the major part of laon from sale proceed of these shares. Further the torrent Group has taken control over the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. through its financing and investment companies. This also clearly proves the above findings and therefore it is held that interest expenditure is not incurred for business of the assessee and same is held for acquiring controlling right through investment in shares and so the same is held as capital expenses and so the same is disallowed. Therefore interest for the period for which fund remained blocked in these investment of shares which is as per assessee's submission is Rs.2,44,76,566/- is hereby disallowed. (Disallowance of Rs,24476566/-)” 3.4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel submitted that the respondent- assessee challenged the order of assessment before the CIT (Appeals) which was allowed by order dated 18.08.2000 by the CIT (Appeals) observing as under : “3. The first ground of appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs.2,44,76,566/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, being interest expenses. The first ground of appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs.2,44,76,566/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, being interest expenses. The Assessing Officer has observed that the appellant has claimed interest of Rs.4,15,13,775/- to the concerns covered u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, viz. M/s. torrent Financiers and Torrent Lease and Finance Pvt. Ltd. he has referred to the assessment order passed for A.Y. 1996-97 and stated that it was observed that the borrowed funds were used for investment in shares of ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited. It was held in that assessment order that the investment in these shares was not made for the business purposes but for acquiring controlling right in the said company and hence interest was disallowed. The Assessing Officer further stated that the facts for this year are also similar and hence the finding given in the assessment order for A.Y. 1996-97 are applicable to this year also. He has also referred to the sale of part of the shares of A.E.C. for Rs.21,94,90,197/- and stated that the appellant has repaid major part of the borrowing out of the sale proceeds. He has stated that the torrent Group has acquired control over A.E.C. Limited he has therefore, concluded that the expenditure is capital expenditure. 3.1. The authorised representative of the appellant submitted before the undersigned that the Assessing Officer has relied upon the assessment order passed by him and the arguments advanced by him in the assessment order for the A.Y. 1996-97. All these arguments were dealt with by the appellant in the submission before me in the appellate proceedings for A.Y. 1996-97. It is further submitted that after considering those submissions vide appellate order dated 22.4.1999 have deleted the entire disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer. The A.R. of the appellant submitted that as the facts for this year are similar to the A.Y.1996-87, following the said appellate order, this disalowance should be deleted. 3.2. I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made on behalf of the appellant. I have also perused the appellate order dated 22.4.1999 in appeal No.CIT(A)V/DC(A)SR.1/93/98-99 wherein I have consider and held that the disallowance of interest on this ground was not justified. The relevant para from the said appellate order for A. Y. 1996-97 is reporduced as under. "3.3. I have also perused the appellate order dated 22.4.1999 in appeal No.CIT(A)V/DC(A)SR.1/93/98-99 wherein I have consider and held that the disallowance of interest on this ground was not justified. The relevant para from the said appellate order for A. Y. 1996-97 is reporduced as under. "3.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant as well as the assessment order. I agree with the contention of the authorised representative of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to carry on business of purchase and sale of shares. I find that the appellant had purchased shares of substantial amount in systematic manner. The shares have been purchased out of the borrowed funds, in respect of which the interest had been claimed. The appellant has in the subsequent year sold the shares and there is substantial business profit on sale of such shares. 3.3(i) Having regard to the decision of the Mumbai High Court reported at 83 ITR 1, I hold that merely because the appellant has not effect sale during the year, it cannot be said that the assessee is not a dealer in shares. The decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Neerja Birla clearly shows that it is not necessary that merely because the appellant has acquired shares of only one company it is not in the nature of business. I appellant represented only 2.56 of the share capital of the and this itself shows that there was no intention of acquiring controlling interest of AEC by the fact that in the subsequent year the assessee has sold the shares and shown substantial business profit. It is seen that the case of Hon'ble gujarat High Court, reported at 201 IT relied upon by the Assessing Officer is quite on different facts. Therefore, the facts on the basis of which addition has been made in itself are incorrect and wrong. 3.3 (ii) In view of the above, it is held that the interest claimed by the appellant is admissible under section 36(1)(iii) as business expenditure and therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1,87,12,121/- made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted" 3.4 As the facts for this case are similar, following the said appellate order, I delete this disallowance.” 3.5. 1,87,12,121/- made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted" 3.4 As the facts for this case are similar, following the said appellate order, I delete this disallowance.” 3.5. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submitted that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of the facts which are narrated by the Assessing Officer as stated in the aforequoted orders, the interest payment of Rs.4,15,13,775/- is claimed by the assessee under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) out of which the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.2,44,76,566/- on the ground that the respondent-assessee company sold shares which were purchased by utilising the amount borrowed from M/s. Torrent Financiers and Torrent Lease and Finance Private Limited to acquire the shares of Ahmedabad Electricity Company in the financial year 1995-96 i.e. for Assessment Year 1996-97 and thereafter, the shares of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company were sold on 28.10.1996 and thereafter, Ahemedabad Electricity Company was acquired by the Torrent Group and taking such facts into consideration, the Assessing Officer dis-allowed the interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of Act on the ground that the funds borrowed by the respondent-assessee was not utilised for the business purpose. 3.6. It was submitted that however, the CIT (Appeals) followed the appellate order dated 22.4.1999 in the appeal filed for the year 1996-97 which was subject matter of the tax Appeal No.919 of 2006. The CIT (Appeal) as quoted hereinabove agreed with the contention of the representative of the respondent-assessee that the assessee is entitled to carry on the business of purchase and sale of the shares and purchased shares of substantial amount in systematic manner and shares have been purchased out of the borrowed funds in respect of which the interest has been claimed and such shares were sold in the subsequent year where there is a substantial business profit on sale of such shares. Considering such facts, it was held that the respondent assessee represented only 2.5% of the share capital and itself shows that there was no intention of acquiring controlling interest of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company because in the subsequent year, the assessee has sold the shares and shown substantial business profit. 4. In such facts, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. In such facts, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Considering the facts narrated by the CIT (Appeals) who is a fact finding authority and accepted by the Tribunal in absence of any other facts and more particularly, when the reliance placed by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Akalu Holdings Private Limited for the Assessment Year 1996-97 has achieved finality. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the facts narrated in the Assessment Order appears to have prima-facie come to the conclusion that there may be a circular trading entered into solely with the idea of evading tax by the respondent-assessee. However, the facts narrated in the order of CIT (Appeals) that total investment made by the assessee in the take over and acquisition of business of Ahmedabad Electricity Company (for short ‘the AEC’) amounted to only Rs.22,59,969/- which is only 2.56% of the share capital of the AEC. Moreover, the respondent-assessee when sold the shares of AEC at Rs.63,57,925/- has declared substantial profit liable to tax. 6. In view of findings of fact recorded by the CIT (Appeals) as quoted hereinabove which is in turn concurred by the Tribunal and when both final fact finding authorities have arrived at the same concurrent findings of fact, no further investigation is required to be undertaken to inquire about circular trading entered into solely with the idea of evading tax by the respondent-assessee acquiring the shares of AEC through finances arrange mainly from sister companies of the Torrent Group along with two other companies to enable the Torrent Group to acquire and take over the business of AEC. 7. In view of the above facts emerging from the record, no question of law much less any substantial question of law can be said to have arisen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as both CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal have rightly deleted the addition of Rs.2,44,76,566/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act after recording the above findings that the respondent-assessee has made investment during the course of business for purchase and sale of the share which represented only 2.56% of the total share capital of AEC and therefore, there cannot be any intention of the respondent-assessee to become a tool to acquire the shares of AEC by Torrent Group. 8. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons and in absence of any question of law arising from the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the appeal stands dismissed. No orders as to cost.