1 itxa1641-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1641 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Shri Vinod Chopra ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Hiro Rai with Mr.Subhash S. Shetty for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. DATE : 20th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Four questions of law have been raised by the Revenue, which reads thus : (a) Whether, the Tribunal was right in recalling the issue which was decided legally and factually and restored to the file of AO for the purpose of adjudicating the same afresh after affording reasonable and proper opportunity to the assessee, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions ? (b) Whether the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee which was open for adjudication before the AO as per Tribunal's earlier orders ? (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to allow the claim u/s. 80HHF without appreciating the legal position that the claim was neither supported by the report in the prescribed form No.10CCAI as per Rules 18 BBA(9) along with the Return of Income nor furnished before the completion of the assessment as provided in the Act ? 2 itxa1641-10 (d) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in granting full relief especially when there was no change in the existing facts and legal position ? 2. As regards question (a) and (b) are concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the said questions do not arise from the order of the Tribunal, which is the subject matter of present appeal. In fact, these questions relate to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on a miscellaneous application for recalling its earlier order. Since the Tribunal has passed the impugned order in the light of the order passed on a miscellaneous application, questions (a) and (b) cannot be entertained. 3. As regards question (c) is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that admittedly the Certificate in Form 10CCA were not submitted along with the return of income, but was in fact furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. This Court in the case of CIT V/s. Shivanand Electricals reported in 209 ITR 63 has held that filing of Certificate is mandatory but filing of Certificate along with return of income is not mandatory. In this view of the matter, question (c) cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. 4. As regards question (d) is concerned, the same is a general question and does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. 5. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)