1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3063 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III ..Appellant. Versus M/s.P.V. Constructions, Mumbai ..Respondent. Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant. Mr.Poras Kaka with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 15th Ferbuary, 2010. P.C. : 1. The following substantial questions of law have been framed by the Revenue in this Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuance of a notice under Section 148 were not valid ? b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs.300/- per square feet received by the assessee from the flat purchasers and paid to M/s.Jayant Powai Properties Private Limited was liable as a deduction ?” 2. On the second question noted above, we have by our Judgment delivered in companion appeal, bearing Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2876 of 2009, come to the conclusion that the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question 2 of law and the Tribunal was correct in its determination. For the reasons already indicated for the decision in the companion appeal, the second question of law has no merit and the confirm the view of the Tribunal. 3. In view of the fact that we have hold on merits against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, the question as regards the validity of the reopening of the assessment ceases to be of any practical relevance and has become academic. 4. We do not find that any substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)