HVN 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 (L) NO. 109 OF 2007 OF 2007 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Walchandnagar Ins. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. R. Ashokan for the Appellant. Mrs.Vasanti B. Patel for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 17, 2008 DATED: MARCH 17, 2008 DATED: MARCH 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The question of law framed is as under : "Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,35,14,914/- on account of the commission paid even though assessee was unable to prove that the services were rendered by the commission agent?" . The tribunal in the impugned order has noted that for the assessment year 1990-91, the tribunal recorded a finding which is reproduced and to the effect that the payees of commission are income tax assessees and has disclosed the commission in their returns. The same view was taken for the assessment years 1993-94. In respect of the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91 and 1993-94 the revenue has not preferred appeal. In other words, in respect of the same issue in respect of the same assessee, the revenue has accepted the order of the tribunal. . Once that be the case, in our opinion, it will not be open to the appellant to raise the same issue. The question of law as framed would not arise. Considering the findings of fact recorded as nothing contrary is brought out in the subsequent years. Appeal accordingly dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)