PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S A.A. NUTRIENTS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/153/2017HC GauhatiGAHC01020746201721 March 20173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Gauhati High Court held that the present case is a "covered case" by the court's previous order dated 30/01/2026 in ITA 1/2026, which dealt with transactions prior to 10/08/2016, and that this order had not been interfered with by the Supreme Court. The reasoning was based on the admission by the Income Tax Department's counsel that the present case indeed fell under the purview of the earlier High Court judgment. Consequently, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018, passed by the Initiating Officer, and the order dated 05/01/2026, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is factually and legally identical to a precedent set by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, the same relief must be granted. The appeal was accordingly disposed of as allowed, with the operative direction being the setting aside of the impugned orders.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sri Debabrata Saha, proprietor of a foreign liquor shop, filed an appeal before the Gauhati High Court challenging an order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA. The appeal invoked Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The appellant contended that his case was covered by a previous order of the same court dated 30/01/2026 in ITA 1/2026 (Satyajit Saha and 9 Ors. Vs. the Union of India and 3 Ors.). This previous order dealt with transactions that occurred prior to 10/08/2016. The appellant argued that the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018 and the subsequent Tribunal order should be set aside based on the precedent set in ITA 1/2026, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, admitted that the present case was indeed covered by the aforementioned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018 and the order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA are liable to be set aside in light of the Gauhati High Court's order dated 30/01/2026 in ITA 1/2026, concerning transactions prior to 10/08/2016, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. Assessee's Contentions: The appellant argued that the present case is a "covered case" and should be decided in terms of the order dated 30/01/2026 passed by the Gauhati High Court in ITA 1/2026. This is because the transactions in question occurred prior to 10/08/2016. The appellant relied on the fact that the Supreme Court had not interfered with the High Court's order in ITA 1/2026, having dismissed the SLP filed by the respondents. Therefore, the Provisional Attachment Order and the Tribunal's order should be set aside. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department admitted that the present case is covered by the order dated 30/01/2026 passed by the Gauhati High Court in ITA 1/2026, which was not interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 49

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010163492026

2026:GAU- AS:16026-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : ITA/7/2026 SRI DEBABRATA SAHA PROPRIETOR MOTORSTAND FOREIGN LIQUOR SHOP, SON OF SRI BINOD LAL SAHA, RESIDENT OF SHANT PARA, TRIPURA-799001, AGARTALA. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI. 2:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BP CUM APPROVING AUTHORITY AYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G S ROAD GUWAHATI 781005 3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BP CUM INITIATING OFFICER AYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G S ROAD GUWAHATI 781005 4:THE INITIATING OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENAMI PROHIBITION GUWAHATI NEAR ROOM NO. 313 3RD FLOOR

Page No.# 2/3 AAYAKAR BHAWAN G S ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-780005 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN, MS. H BORAH,MS A DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, INCOME TAX

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 02-11-2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 2. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal by invoking the provisions of Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05/01/2026, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi in review applications, including an application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents. 3. The case of the appellant is that the present case is a covered case and can be decided in terms of the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026 (Satyajit Saha and 9 Ors. Vs. the Union of India and 3 Ors.), inasmuch as, the transactions, on the basis of which the Provisional Attachment Order of assets of the appellant and order dated 05.01.2026 had been made, pertained to transactions which occurred prior to 10/08/2016. He accordingly submits that in view of the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026, which has not been interfered with by

Page No.# 3/3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No.53803/2026, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018 passed by the Initiating Officer and the order dated 05/01/2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi, in MP-PBPT-938/GWH/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-939/GWH/ 2025 (CoD) in FPA- PBPT-928/GWH/2019, should be set aside. He submits that the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.10.2026 passed in SLP(C) Diary No.53803/2026 had dismissed the SLP filed by the respondents against the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026. 4. Dr. P. Agarwal, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department admits that the present case is covered by the order dated 30/01/2026, passed by this court in ITA 1/2026, which has not been interfered with by the Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in it’s order dated 07.10.2026 passed in SLP(C) Diary No.53803/2026 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satyajit Saha & Ors.) 5. As the present case is a covered case, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25/06/2018, passed by the Initiating Officer and the order dated 05/01/2026, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi in MP-PBPT- 938/GWH/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-939/GWH/ 2025 (CoD) in FPA-PBPT- 928/GWH/2019 are hereby set aside. 6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as allowed.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →