( 1 ) 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 ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.998 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.998 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.998 OF 2008 The CIT .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Csango .. Respondent Mr.R.A.Vaishampayan for the Appellant. Mr.K.Gopal with Mr.Jitendra Singh for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 5th September, 2008 DATE : 5th September, 2008 DATE : 5th September, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the Tribunal’s order dated 31st October, 2007. In the present Appeal, the Appellant has raised the following questions of law:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that re-opening of the assessment is bad in law? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the re-opening of the assessment, holding that there was no failure on the part of the Assessee and therefore reopening of the assessment is invalid? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no reason to believe that the income has escaped from the assessment and hence reopening is bad in law? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in passing a totally different order after recalling its earlier order, and reversing its findings when there is no change of circumstances? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has powers to reverse its earlier findings upon rehearing the matter after recalling its earlier order, which amounts to review and when such powers have not been specifically conferred by the Statute upon the Tribunal? (f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the estimation of the Gross Profit made by the ( 2 ) Assessing Officer? 2. As far as aforesaid Questions (a), (b), (d) & (e) are concerned, the same have no substance, since the impugned order was passed after the Misc.Application was filed, and thereafter earlier order was recalled and a fresh order was passed. Hence, the aforesaid Questions (a), (b), (d) & (e) do not survive. 3. So far as Question (c) is concerned, the said question (c) does not arise out of the Tribunal’s order which is impugned in this Appeal, and hence the said question (c) stands rejected. 4. So far as Question (f) is concerned, it is clear from the Tribunal’s order, especially Paragraph No.23 of the said order, that the said issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Metro Shoes Limited. Metro Shoes Limited. Metro Shoes Limited. Over and above, the afroesaid Question (f) is also squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March, 2008 passed in ITXA No.367 of 2002 and other connected Appeals in the case of CIT V/s.Metro Shoes Limited, CIT V/s.Metro Shoes Limited, CIT V/s.Metro Shoes Limited, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 5. In view of the above, there is no substance in this Appeal. Hence, Appeal stands dismissed. ( 3 ) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)