CIT vs. DINESH JAIN-HUF

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1085/2010 . CIT ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate . versus . DINESH JAIN-HUF ..... Respondent Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 12.08.2010 . CM 14060/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 1085/2010 In the present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ?Act?) the Revenue has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 30th June, 2009 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?B?, New Delhi (for short ?tribunal?) in a composite manner disposed of the appeals preferred by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. ITA 1085/2010 Page 1 of 3 We have heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the Assessee. It is submitted by Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue that the order passed by the tribunal cannot be faulted but subsequently certain events have taken place which are required to be taken note of. Be it noted, the tribunal had declined to interfere in the appeal as it had felt that the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act deserve to be quashed as there was no authority to the effect that the Additional Director of Income Tax was not authorised to direct the search as contemplated under Section 132(1) of the Act. It is submitted by Ms. Prem Lata Bansal that the Parliament has amended the provision engrafted under Section 132 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (33 of 2009) whereby the Additional Director has been authorised to direct search. She further submitted that the said amendment has been brought in the Statute book, w.e.f. 1st June, 1994. Ordinarily we would have set aside the order and remanded the matter directing the tribunal to advert to the controversy on merits, but Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the Assessee has . ITA 1085/2010 Page 2 of 3 . . submitted that a peculiar circumstance has taken place in respect of present assessment year. Learned counsel for the Assessee has produced an order passed by the tribunal in ITA No. 38/Del/2009 which was disposed of along with ITA No. 39/Del/2009 preferred by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal had allowed said appeals of the Revenue in part. We have been apprised at the Bar that said appeals preferred by the Revenue, which did not find favour before the tribunal, have been assailed before this Court under Section 260A of the Act on merits. In view of aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by the tribunal in this appeal so that the Revenue will not face any impediment when other appeals are heard. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 12, 2010 rn . . ITA 1085/2010 Page 3 of 3 . #7