/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.303 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai ...Appellant V/s. M/s.Patel Engineering Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.P.P. Bhosale with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant. Mr.R. Dada Sr. Adv. with Mr.Jitendra Jain with Mr.Ranjeet Shetty with Mr.L.H. Indorkar for Respondent i/b. Hariani & Co. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATED : 29th APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel Mr.Dada for the respondent. By this Chamber Summons, appellant is seeking amendment in memo of appeal to raise additional question of law as under:- / 2/ “2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the work carried out by the assessee in Srisailam Project and in Koyana Project “is an infrastructure facility” within the meaning of section 80IA (4) of the Act?” 2. Mr. Dada, learned senior counsel for the respondent pointed that neither before the Assessing Authority nor before the ITAT whether work carried out by the assessee in Srisailam Project or Koyana Project “is an infrastructure facility” was not an issue at all. Only issue before the Assessing Authority and ITAT was whether assessee is a developer of infrastructure facility and it was not case whether act amounted to infrastructure facility. In view thereof, proposed question of law which is sought to be introduced by this amendment did not arise or was contended by the appellant neither before the Assessing Authority nor before the ITAT. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to allow above amendment. Chamber Summons is dismissed. / 3/ (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)