ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

ITA 563/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 November 2025AY 2015-1668 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's stand that an issue has not attained finality merely because the Tribunal's decision has been appealed is incorrect and required strong deprecation. It was emphasized that subordinate authorities must follow the orders of appellate authorities, including obtaining stays if they intend not to implement them. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's argument that High Court judgments upholding Section 56(2)(viii) were per incuriam. Citing Article 141 of the Constitution, the Tribunal stated that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and authorities, and it is their bounden duty to follow it. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it could not question the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight. Consequently, the common legal ground raised was decided against the assessee, rendering the individual grounds academic. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, and the orders of the Assessing Officer were restored and upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and their orders were sustained.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates numerous appeals filed by various assessees and the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeals pertain to different assessment years ranging from 2012-13 to 2018-19 and 2014-15 to 2025. The core of the dispute revolves around the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended, and the binding nature of judicial precedents. The Assessing Officers (AOs) had taken a stand that if the Tribunal's decision for a particular assessment year was appealed, the issue had not attained finality, and they were not bound by higher court decisions if they found distinguishing features. The Tribunal was tasked with deciding the common legal ground raised in these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer is bound by the decisions of higher appellate authorities, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, even if the AO believes there are distinguishing features or that the issue has not attained finality due to an appeal against the Tribunal's own order. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment were per incuriam and should not be disregarded. They also contended that the AO's refusal to implement appellate orders without obtaining a stay was incorrect. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through the Assessing Officer's actions, argued that if the Tribunal's decision for a specific assessment year was appealed, the issue had not attained finality. The Revenue also implicitly argued that the AO could distinguish Supreme Court decisions and was not bound by them if they believed such features existed. The Revenue's appeals were allowed, suggesting their stance on the core legal issue was ultimately upheld by the Tribunal.

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(30)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 बनाम The ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AYJPK1793R अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : 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 बनाम The ITO Ward-5, Ambala स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CAYPK4198R अपीलार्थी/Appellant 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 बनाम The ITO Ward-5, Ambala स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CAYPK4198R अपीलार्थी/Appellant 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 →