1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.2879 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 18th February, 2010. P.C.: Office objections are waived and the registry is directed to register the appeal. During the course of the hearing of the appeal for admission on the previous occasion, counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee had submitted that the assessee had paid minimum alternative tax on the basis of Section 115-JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and since there is no tax effect involved in the present appeal, the issue which is sought to be raised by the revenue has become academic. We had adjourned the proceedings in order to enable counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue to take instructions. Learned counsel has placed on the record a communication dated 9th February, 2010 of the ACIT, Central Circle-24, Mumbai in which the assessing officer has accepted that it is 2 correct that the tax paid by the assessee under Section 115-JB is higher than the amount of tax which would be worked out if the deduction under Section 80- IB(10) in respect of the project in question were to be disallowed in Assessment Year 2003-04. In that view of the matter, since the issue which arises is academic, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain the appeal. However, we clarify that we leave the question of law open to be agitated before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)