Dismissing the petition of the Revenue  the issue of filing of returns after the date prescribed by law had been taken up by the assessee before the court in a writ petition whereupon the court had set aside the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and condoned the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the returns (DILIP BUILDCON LTD. v. UOI (2017) 9 9 ITR-OL 33 (MP) 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12234). Admittedly, the order passed by the court had attained finality as it had not been challenged by the assessee before any higher court. In such circumstances, the issue regarding delay in filing the return and the contention of the Department that the Settlement Commission had wrongly allowed the deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act, without taking into consideration the aspect of delay, did not survive. That on the question whether the assessee was only a works contractor, and the benefit of the provisions relating to work undertaken for infrastructural development had wrongly been allowed by the Settlement Commission, the Settlement Commission had discussed these aspects extensively and had recorded a finding in that regard. The finding in favour of the assessee was a finding of fact and did not warrant interference by the court in writ proceedings.