Assessee, involved in trading shares of certain company made a long-term capital gain claim, which was found bogus by Commissioner (Appeals) after examining factual aspects and modus operandi. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals)’s findings. In appeal the  assessee contended that new documents obtained under Right to Information Act should be considered for re-examination by Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals).  Assessee also relied on an adjudicating order passed by SEBI. Dismissing the appeal the Court held that   High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A, could not re-examine factual issues not presented before lower authorities.  Further reliance placed on order passed by adjudicating authority of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was thoroughly misplaced since said order did not examine specific transaction done by assessee with respect to shares of company in question. Therefore, there was no grounds to interfere with order passed by Tribunal and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A is required to consider as to whether any substantial question of law has arisen for consideration and High Court cannot be converted into an appellate Tribunal to examine factual issue which was never placed by assessee before Assessing Officer or before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Tribunal. Tribunal followed Shyam Sunder Bajaj v.ITO (2023) 198 ITD 253 (Kol)(Trib)     (AY. 2015-16)