IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.383 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Tata Sons Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.Dinesh Vyas with Mr.Ajit Shah for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused appeal. 3. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1991-92. So far as question (A) is concerned, it is brought to our notice that for earlier years and even for subsequent years, the Revenue has accepted the very same view of the Tribunal, rather right from the A.Y. 1988-1989 till A.Y. 1990-91. No appeal was preferred by the revenue against either of the orders. Even after A.Y. 1992-93 till A.Y. 1996-97, though the tribunal has followed the very same view, no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue. Under these circumstances, if the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal for all these years, there is no justification for the Revenue not to accept the said order for A.Y. 1991-92. Under these circumstances, we see no substantial question of law in this appeal. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed on this count. 3. So far as question (B) is concerned, the same is covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Tata Sons Limited delivered on 26-7-2005 in Income Tax Appeal No.1030 of 2000. 4. So far as question (C) is concerned, the issue sought to be raised therein is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited V/s. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 with respect to the applicability of Section 73 of the Income Tax Act. On factual aspects the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Indian Commercial Co. Private Limited reported in 106 ITR 465 which is still holding the field. As such, it is clear that the said question also covered by two judgments as stated herein. 5. So far as question (D) is concerned, the same is also covered by the order of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Tata Sons Limited in Income Tax Appeal No.381 of 2009 passed on 20-4-2009. In this view of the matter, no question of law survives on this count. 6. So far as third questions styled as question No.(c) is concerned, Learned Counsel for the Revenue reiterated with great persuation. We were taken through the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as by the Tribunal. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the assessee did not act as a Dealer in purchase and sale of the share nor has acted as a Dealer in shares. This, being a finding of fact, based on appreciation of evidence with which no fault can be found, we do not see any substantial question of law arising on this count. However, we make it clear that so far as the question relating to right to receive shares is concerned, whether or not it is a share or it is only an entitlement to claim shares need not be gone into in this appeal. It was not necessary for both the authorities under the Act to deal with this question having decided the question on the pecuniar facts of this case. We keep this question open for being considered in appropriate proceedings. 7. In the above view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)