COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARUN KUMAR JAIN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the controversy was covered by the tribunal's earlier decision on a factual basis. Since the appellant could not provide information on whether the prior decision was challenged, the court was not inclined to interfere.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed an ITAT order that confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2006-07. The ITAT had relied on its prior decision for AY 2005-06 in the assessee's own case.
What were the issues?
Whether the High Court should interfere with an ITAT order when the issue is covered by a previous ITAT decision and the appellant provides no information about challenging that prior decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 1119/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocae. . versus . ARUN KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 13.08.2010 CM No. 14097/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 98 days in refiling of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and regard being had to the assertions made in the applications, we find sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, accordingly, delay in refilling the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. . ITA 1119/2010 page 1 of 3. . . ITA 1119/2010 The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ?Act?) is directed against the order dated 17th July, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (for short ?tribunal?) whereby the tribunal in paragraph 3 has stated as follows:- ?3. Identical grounds were raised by the revenue in assessee?s own case in ITA No. 2829/Del/08 for A.Y. 2005-06 wherein the ITAT Delhi Bench ?A? vide its order dated 19.6.2009 has held that parties with whom the assessee had business dealings had confirmed the transactions in the course of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer and it could not be said that the transactions of the third party belonged to the assessee to sustain the addition. In the light of the same, the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 is also confirmed.? . . Learned counsel for the appellant could not apprise us whether the decision rendered by the tribunal on earlier occasion has been challenged or not. Needless to say, the controversy is covered by the earlier decision of the tribunal on a factual score. . ITA 1119/2010 page 2 of 3. . . . In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed in limine. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 13, 2010 js . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1119/2010 page 3 of 3. . 16 .
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026