((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH WEALTH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2007 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2007 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2007 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2007 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Appellant Vs. M/s. Pushya Properties Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.S.M.Shah with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain i/by S. Mahamedbhai & Co. for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The tribunal disposed of the appeals for the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-200,2002-03. From the facts this is not a case of assessment but reassessment. . The tribunal in Para 7 has observed as under : "Having heard the ld. D.R. and having gone through the written submission filed by the asssessee, we find that the CIT (A) has allowed the assessee’s claim on two grounds viz., (i) that the reopening is bad ((-2-)) and (ii) that the property was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee. We find that the Revenue has raised the ground of appeal only relating to the non inclusion of the property in the net wealth of the assessee. The Revenue has not challenged the finding of the CIT(A) that the reopening of the assessment is bad. For this reason alone the revenue appeal is liable to be dismissed." . After having so said, the tribunal proceeded to answer second issue also on merits. . The question before us is whether the question as now framed would arise from the order of the tribunal. Once there was finding by the tribunal that in the absence of challenging the finding that the reopening is bad and consequent dismissal of the appeal, the mere fact that it answered the second issue wold not give rise to the question as now framed as the appeal before tribunal itself would not be maintainable. Considering the above, in our opinion, the question as framed would not arise and consequently all three appeals dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)