COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1176/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Standing Counsel . versus . ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Ms. Poonam Ahuja with Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 19.08.2010 . Heard Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Ms. Poonam Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent. In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ?Act?) the Revenue has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ?tribunal?) in ITA No. 437/Del/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-2004 whereby . . ITA 1176/2010 page 1 of 4. . the tribunal has given the stamp of approval to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short (CIT(A)] on the ground that the contents of the papers were never confronted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, and further the confirmations filed by the co-owners of the assessee were not controverted by the Assessing Officer. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that both CIT(A) and the tribunal have not appreciated that the documents were confronted to the assessee, as is evident from the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Learned standing counsel has drawn our attention to that part of the assessment order whereby the Assessing Officer has dealt with other valuation and further drafted a chart and observed that the assessee was called upon to give an explanation about the contents of the papers and he had given a reply which has been reproduced thereunder. The submission of the learned counsel for Revenue is that had the tribunal adverted to the said facet, it would have apportioned the share of the assessee and fixed the tax liability. . ITA 1176/2010 page 2 of 4. . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid stand can be agitated by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the tribunal as Ms. Rashmi Chopra would submit it is manifest and apparent error on record. Regard being had to the aforesaid, we are inclined to give liberty to the Revenue to file an application under Section 254(2) within a period of four weeks with the stipulation that the tribunal shall dispose of the same within a period of 8 weeks from its presentation. As agreed to by Ms. Poonam Ahuja, learned counsel for the assessee will accept the application under Section 254(2) to be filed by the Revenue from Ms. Rashmi Chopra and would instruct the assessee to appear within a span of 2 weeks before the tribunal. The present arrangement has been done to cut short the delay. In case the application is rejected, it is open to the Revenue to re-file an appeal challenging the main order passed by the tribunal and at that juncture this Court would deal with the same on merits. . ITA 1176/2010 page 3 of 4. . . . With the aforesaid observation, the present appeal stands disposed of. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 19, 2010 rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1176/2010 page 4 of 4. . . . . #61