IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.280 OF 2001 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.298 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income-tax....Appellant Vs. Smt. Madhuri Mathur ....Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO : F.I. REBELLO : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. R.S. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. MOHITE, JJ. MOHITE, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 7TH JANUARY,2008 : 7TH JANUARY,2008 : 7TH JANUARY,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . These two Appeals are preferred against the common order dated 29th January, 2001 whereby the Appeals preferred by the Revenue were dismissed by ITAT confirming the view taken by the Commissioner of Appeals who had reversed the order of the A.O. 2. The assessee’s assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.. The said assessment was sought to be reopened by issuing notice under Section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer on the facts reopened the assessment. In Appeal the Commissioner of Appeals after considering that the record with all the material relied upon by the A.O.for reopening the assessment were all available at the time the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. The learned Tribunal after perusing the record confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had come to the conclusion that there were no reasons to believe for reopening the assessment. 3. These are purely findings of fact. There is nothing on record warranting us to take a different view and consequently the question of law as framed would not arise.Consequently both the Appeals dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, (R.S.MOHITE, (R.S.MOHITE, J.) J.) J.) (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J)