: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.170 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.170 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.170 OF 2009 M/s. Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. ...Petitioner. V/s. The CIT-VIII & 3 Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Neha Palshikar Bhide , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.U.S.Jain, adv. for the Respondent No.5. Ms.Alpana Ghone i/by Kanga & Co., adv. for the Respondent No.6. CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 6th April, 2009. DATE : 6th April, 2009. DATE : 6th April, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Petitioner before this Court through their counsel in writ petition no.1783 of 2007 made a statement to this Court that they would pay special auditors in terms of letter dated 31.5.2007 which was recorded in the order. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioner that M/s.Agrawal & Chhajed, earlier Chartered Accountants have charged more than the successor Special Auditor, M/s.Shaparia & Mehta, Chartered Accountants. Petitioner moved the Commissioner against the charging of fees who by his letter dated 13.10.2008 rejected the revision preferred. : 2 : 2. Issue pertains to the fees charged by the Chartered Accountants in terms of the letter dated 31.5.2007. The issue as to whether Chartered Accountants has charged in terms of letter is a question of fact. The Commissioner has held that 8. "Since the assessee has not challenged the number of hours put in by the main partners of M/s. Agrawal & Chhajed before the Hon’ble High Court and has agreed to pay the fees to M/s. Agrawal & Chhajed as per the letter of appointment, it appears that after the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, the matter is not open for the CIT to decide the issue whether the work done by M/s. Agrawal & Chhajed is proportionate to the number of hours put in by them and calculation of fee payable to them is justifiable or not." It is the grievance of the petitioner that the earlier Chartered Accountants have not charged them in terms of communication dated 31st May, 2007. 3. Petitioner if still aggrieved can refer the matter to the Institute of Chartered Accountants or take any other remedy which may be available to them. 4. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed off. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) : 3 : (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)