IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 1289/2006  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX          ..... Appellant 
 Through Mr. J.R. Goel with Mr. S.C. 
 Sharma, Advs. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 DESH RAJ JUNEJA                     ..... Respondent 
 Through Mr. Salil Aggarwal with Mr. 
 Prakash Kumar, Advs. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN 
 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               21.11.2006 
 . 
 . 
 Heard. 
 Admit. 
 The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- 
 (a) Whether the Ld. ITAT in the facts and circumstances of the case was correct 
 in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance 
 with the law? 
 (b) Whether the Ld. ITAT in the facts and circumstances of the case was correct 
 in law in holding that even if the reasons for reopening of the assessment are 
 recorded, the same are not legally sustainable inasmuch as the Revenue has 
 failed to produce the records for legal scrutiny of the Tribunal? 
 ITA 1289.2006                                                 Page 1 of 2 
 (c) Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse as it failed to appreciate and 
 consider that the CIT(A) categorically recorded the finding that ?it is seen 
 that the A.O. had sufficient reasons for reopening the assessment and these 
 reasons were duly recorded and approved by the concerned authority?? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. MURALIDHAR, J 
 NOVEMBER 21, 2006 
 tp 
 . 
 ITA 1289.2006                                                 Page 2 of 2 
 45