IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 1088/2010  
 . 
 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 14062/2010 
 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 
 ITA 1088/2010 
 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 1088/2010                                                               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 for 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 1088/2010                                                               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 1088/2010                                                               Page 
 3 of 3 
 . 
 . 
 #53 
 $