IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 679/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ATUL GULATI          ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanat Kapoor and Mr. Vikas Jain, Advs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 DCIT           ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, sr. standing counsel 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     18.12.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Issue notice. 
 . 
 2. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, sr. standing counsel accepts notice on behalf 
 of respondent and states that affidavit is not required. 
 . 
 3. The assessee challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate 
 Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) in ITA No.148/Del/2002.  It urges that 
 the Tribunal fell into error not deciding the additional ground permitted 
 to be urged by it i.e. that the assessment made under Section 158BC on 
 . 
 31.8.2001 was barred by limitation in terms of Section 158BE.  The facts briefly are that pursuant to search on 8.7.99, the revenue issued a 
 notice to the assessee which ultimately culminated in the assessing 
 officer bringing to tax an amount of `1,94,17,012/- as undisclosed 
 income.   The assessee?s appeal to the Commissioner(A) was partly allowed 
 and the matter was remitted on certain aspects.  The assessee carried the 
 matter in appeal further to the Tribunal.  The revenue too filed a cross- 
 appeal to the Tribunal.  During the pendency of the appeal the assessee 
 sought to urge additional grounds by an application dated 5.12.2006.  The 
 assessee relies upon certain order sheets entries of the Tribunal to say 
 that the additional ground was permitted to be urged.  Its grievance is 
 that despite these order sheet entries, the Tribunal did not deal with 
 the contention that the proceedings were barred by limitation under 
 Section 158BE. 
 . 
 4. This Court has considered the submissions.  The extract of the 
 order sheet would reveal that in fact the appellant?s additional ground 
 was taken on record.  However, the impugned order does not reflect any 
 consideration of the question of limitation.  Having regard to these 
 facts the Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider the 
 contention with regard to the limitation issue and pass a reasoned order 
 in accordance with law.  The impugned order is consequently set aside and 
 the matter remitted for consideration on the question of limitation.  The 
 rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly 
 reserved. 
 . 
 The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 DECEMBER 18, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 9 to 11 
 .