:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.118 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. ..Respondent. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale with Mr.B.M.Chatterji for the Appellant. Mr.S.J.Mehta i/by S.P. Mehta for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. Revenue has raised three questions. The question (i) and (ii) arise from the order passed in the appeals preferred by the revenue and Question (iii) arises from the order passed in the appeals preferred by the assessee. 2. In so far as, question (i) is concerned the tribunal followed the decision for the assessment year 1984-85. This issue was also in issue in Income Tax Appeal No.119 of 2001 which was for the assessment year 1984-85. For the reasons set out while disposing of the said appeal, the question (i) as framed in this appeal would not arise. 3. In so far as question (ii) is concerned, the tribunal relied on its order for the assessment year :2: 1984-85. The counsel for the respondent has brought our attention that revenue has challenged the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 1988-89. Having accepted the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 1984-85, it is not open to the revenue in respect of the same issue to raise this question in this appeal. Consequently this question also would not arise. 4. In so far as question (iii) is concerned, the learned tribunal relied on the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 and various other years. Nothing has been brought to our attention that the tribunal has challenged the assessment order for the annual year 1982-83 and 1984-85 on the said question. Considering the above the question as framed would not arise and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)