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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.279 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.279 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.279 OF 2005 The Director of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. Smt.Bhanuben M.Nanavati Foundation ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. In the above appeal, the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised by the revenue. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer on account of dividend and interest income treating the same as not eligible for exemption u/s.10(22A) ?" 2. It appears that the Tribunal has passed the above order based on the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1996-97 bearing I.T.A. No.2439 / Mum / 2000. In view thereof, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue had taken time on 24th March, 2008 - = : 2 : = - and again on 31st March, 2008 to find out whether any appeal was filed against the same or whether the revenue has accepted the said finding. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the revenue has not filed any appeal. It appears that the revenue has accepted the said finding. Under the aforesaid facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)