(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Review Application No. 177 of 2009 (In Writ Petition No. 6140 of 2008) Shri Vijay Kumar Bagadia (Indl.), Age about 55 years, Occupation : Business, Laxminarayan Oil Mill Compound, Dr. R.P. Road, Jalna 431 202. .. Applicant. versus 1. Income-tax Settlement Commissioner, Additional Bench, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Mumbai 400 034. 2. Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad, Pune Road, Aurangabad. 3. Union of India, through its Standing Counsel at High Court, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1 to 3. (2) ....................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. This is an application for review of the judgment and order passed by us, in Writ Petition No. 6140/2008, dated 25th September 2008. 2. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (petitioner in writ petition), submits that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 6140/2008 has been delivered on the basis of the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. ((1994) 2 SCC 374. It is, however, submitted that the said judgment has been explained in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Damani Brothers ((2002) 254 ITR 91 (SC)). 3. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, further submits that even the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of CIT, Madras Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. (supra), has not been correctly followed by this court in the judgment under review. 4. In so far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Damani Brothers (supra) is concerned, it can be seen that in the said case, the Bench consisting of two Honourable (3) Judges of the Apex Court have referred the matter to Larger Bench for consideration. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the said judgment is of any assistance to the applicants. 5. In so far as the contention, that the judgment in the case of CIT, Madras Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. (supra) has not been correctly followed by this court, is concerned, we find that the said ground would not be available for review of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 6140/2008. If the applicant (petitioner in writ petition) is aggrieved with the findings in the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 6140/2008, the forum would be somewhere else and not under review. 6. Review Application is, therefore, rejected. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ra177