1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.552 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Tips Films P. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. B.M. Chatterji for appellant. Mr. Deepak Tralshawala i/b. V.A. Hadade for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 8TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. :- 1. The appeal which is placed before the Court for directions is taken up for admission with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. 2. Seven questions have been raised by the Revenue in an appeal against the order of the ITAT dated 31st January, 2004. The order of the Tribunal arises out of the block assessment from 1st April, 1989 to 27th July, 1999. The Tribunal passed a common order 2 in an appeal filed by the assessee in the present case and another appeal. which was filed by the sister concern of the assessee by the name of M/s. Tips Industries P. Ltd. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Tips Industries P. Ltd. was dismissed by this Court on 22nd January, 2010 [Income Tax Appeal No.541 of 2009]. In that appeal, the Court recorded the statement of counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that question No.(ii) therein was not pressed. 3. At the hearing of this appeal, counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has fairly stated that the issues which are sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal would be covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 22nd January, 2010 noted earlier. Counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly stated that the issues in this appeal arise out of the same seizure, pursuant to the same search which was conducted at the same time and place, though relating to a different assessee which is a sister concern. For the same reason that question No. (ii) in the earlier appeal was not pressed, counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that question (b) out of the seven questions framed in the appeal by the Revenue in this case, is also not pressed. Since it is not disputed before the Court that all the other questions which are raised in this appeal would stand covered by the judgment 3 of this Court dated 22nd January, 2010, no substantial question of law would arise. We may also add that counsel for the Revenue has not distinguished the earlier judgment of this Court dated 22nd January, 2010 either on facts or on law. The appeal would accordingly stand dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)