IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No. 2793 OF 2008. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No. 2793 OF 2008. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No. 2793 OF 2008. The Commissioner of Income-tax. .. Appellant. Vs Smt Sushila B. Shah. .. Respondent. Mr A. S. Shivsaran, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr Sharan Jagtiani with Mr Azizkhan i/b Divya Shah & Associate for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. We have perused the Tribunal’s order dated 26.3.2008. The Tribunal has considered the entire issue at length. Paragraph 2 of the order dated 26.3.2008 runs as under: "The learned counsel for the Assessee, at the out set, has brought to our notice that the issue under appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of the co-owner, Shri Harish P. Shah in ITA No.1158/Mum/2001 E-Bench order dated 13th August, 2004 and in the case of Shri Mohanlal K. Shah, H.U.F. in ITA No. 722/Mum/2003 and ITA No.7161/Mum/2003 for the very same assessment year 1997-98 E-Bench order dated 22.09.2004 and 24.09.2004 respectively. The learned Departmental representative, though not leaving his ground, has ultimately conceded to the above proposition. Respectfully following the co-ordinate bench decisions, we reject the ground taken by the Revenue." 3. We have also perused the order of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 209 of 2006 dated 26.3.2008. 4. In view of the above, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. We do not find any case made out for admission of the above appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)