COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 804 / 2010HC Delhi13 August 20103 pages
For Petitioner: PL BANSAL
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted the appellant liberty to file an application before the tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to address the alleged factual errors. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against a tribunal's decision, arguing that it was based on erroneous facts leading to a fallacious conclusion. The respondent disputed this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was based on erroneous facts, and if so, how to rectify it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

26 & 27

\* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

26.

+ ITA 802/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate.

versus

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

And

27.

+ ITA 804/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate.

versus

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

ITAs No. 802 & 904 of 2010

page 1 of 3.

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

ORDER 13.08.2010

Heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Kalra, learned counsel for the respondent.

It is submitted by Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has adverted to certain aspects which are based on erroneous facts as a consequence of which a fallacious conclusion has been arrived at.

Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent seriously disputed the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Regard being had to the aforesaid aspect, we only grant liberty to the appellant to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

We may hasten to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on any aspect but have only granted liberty on the basis of the statement made by Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant.

ITAs No. 802 & 904 of 2010

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

Needless to say, the tribunal shall be totally guided by the parameters engrafted under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the law relating to the said provision.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MANMOHAN, J

AUGUST 13, 2010 js

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →