-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 994 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai ).. Appellant Versus Ms Malvika Arun Somaiya ) (alias Priya Mohan Gurnant) ).. Respondent Mr Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr R Murlidhar with Mr Dhavik Manek i/b Wadia Gandhy & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER 2008. P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. While challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 27th September 2007, it is contended that the Assessee having not filed any fresh returns in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal erred in holding that notice under Section 143(3) (2) ought to have been served upon the Assessee before taking any further proceedings and on this basis question of law raised is that the Tribunal has erred in interpreting Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and has incorrectly come to the conclusion that the order of assessment -2- was in violation of the statutory provisions. 3. In our view, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call for any interference in face of the judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs HUF of H H Late Shri J M Scindia, Wealth Tax Appeal No.1001 of 2007 decided on 5th February 2008 and the judgment of the Rajasthan Court in the case of Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 1985 Vol. ITR 154 (Raj.). No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, J.