-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.943 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-VI: Appellant v/s M/s. IRB INfrastructure Ltd. : Respondent Mr. J.S. Saluja for Appellant Mr. A.K. Jasani for respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 24.9.2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. . The learned counsel for the appellant seeking to raise the question of law pertaining to method of accounting adopted by the assessee. We have perused the Tribunal’s order dt. 9.1.2008. In paragraph seven the Tribunal has observed as under. We find that in the present case, the facts in the present year are the same as in the earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2000-01, which is the first year of operation of this project. We are of the considered option that since there is no change in the facts in the present year, the Assessing Officer was not justified in -2- taking a different view in the present year but at the same time,we find that the assessee itself has accepted the view of the Assessing Officer by filing revised return in subsequent years. In the light of these facts we feel that ideally, the view taken by the assessing officer in the present year should be confirmed but at the same time, the assessment in the preceding year i.e.A.Y. 2000-01 should also be completed on the same basis as has been done by the Assessing Officer in the present year and which is accepted by the assessee also in the subsequent years; but earlier year is not open before us. . In Tribunal’s order it is clearly observed that facts in the present year are the same as in the earlier year. In the light of the above we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above. It is mere finding of fact. Same is accordingly dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)