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