SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

ITA 458/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 November 2025AY 2018-1968 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officers' stand in refusing to implement orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or Supreme Court without obtaining a stay was wrong and required strong deprecation, as it undermined administrative discipline and the efficacy of appellate remedies. The Tribunal emphasized that Article 141 of the Constitution mandates all authorities to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court, and it is not open for Assessing Officers to evade this binding effect by finding 'distinguishing features'. Regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii), the Tribunal held that jurisdictional discipline and the hierarchy of courts prohibit it from questioning the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight. Consequently, the assessee's argument that such judgments were per incuriam was rejected. As the common legal ground was decided against the assessees, their individual grounds became academic. Therefore, all appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed, and the orders of the Assessing Officer were restored and upheld. Conversely, appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and the orders of the Assessing Officer were sustained.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates numerous appeals filed by various assessees and the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The appeals pertain to different assessment years, ranging from 2012-13 to 2018-19 and 2025. The core of the dispute revolves around the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post-amendment, and the binding nature of High Court and Supreme Court decisions on subordinate authorities. The Tribunal had to decide whether the Assessing Officers were justified in disregarding Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments when passing their orders, and whether High Court judgments on the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) could be ignored on grounds of per incuriam. The procedural history indicates that Assessing Officers refused to implement appellate orders, citing pending appeals or perceived distinguishing features in Supreme Court decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officers were justified in refusing to implement orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or Supreme Court without obtaining a stay or appropriate direction, thereby violating principles of judicial discipline and hierarchy of courts? (Question of law turning on principles of administrative discipline and statutory interpretation). 2. Whether the Assessing Officers were correct in disregarding the binding effect of Supreme Court decisions by attempting to find distinguishing features, contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law concerning the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions). 3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is prohibited from questioning the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight (per incuriam), particularly concerning the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment? (Question of law concerning jurisdictional discipline and the doctrine of precedents). Assessee's Contentions: The assessees argued that Assessing Officers should follow Tribunal and Supreme Court orders, and that High Court judgments upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment were per incuriam and should be disregarded. They relied on the principle that subordinate authorities must follow higher appellate authorities' decisions. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the Assessing Officers, contended that decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2014-15 had been appealed, implying the issue had not attained finality. They also attempted to distinguish Supreme Court decisions, arguing that the Assessing Officer was not bound by them if distinguishing features were found. The Revenue also argued that High Court judgments on Section 56(2)(viii) were per incuriam.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(27)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 463/Chd/2023
ITA No. 1043 /Chd/2019
ITA No. 1044/Chd/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE/HYBRID MODE/VIRTUAL MODE श्री ललित कुमार, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री कृणवन्त सहाय, लेखा सदस्य BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Shri Ajay Kumar आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 341, Matana, Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AYJPK1793R अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : बनाम The ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1043 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amrinder Singh Khubber S/o Shri Dilbagh Singh, Vill: Shahpur, Ambala Cantt स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CAYPK4198R अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO Ward-5, Ambala प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1044/Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrinder Singh Khubber S/o Shri Dilbagh Singh, Vill: Shahpur, Ambala Cantt स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CAYPK4198R अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO Ward-5, Ambala प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारित

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viii)

All 364 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →