BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 153/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 November 2025AY 2013-1468 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's stand that the issue had not attained finality because the Tribunal's decision for a different assessment year was appealed against was incorrect and required strong deprecation. The Tribunal emphasized that subordinate authorities cannot refuse to implement an order under appeal without obtaining a stay or appropriate direction from a higher authority, citing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions. The Tribunal also held that it is not open for the Assessing Officer to evade the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by finding distinguishing features, as per Article 141 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it cannot question the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight or per incuriam, and thus rejected the assessee's argument that certain High Court judgments were per incuriam. Consequently, the common legal ground raised was decided against the assessee, and the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate individual grounds as they became academic. Appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

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 2014-15 to 2025. The core of the dispute, as indicated by the Tribunal's reasoning, revolves around the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post-amendment, and the binding nature of Supreme Court and High Court judgments on subordinate authorities. The judgment addresses the conduct of Assessing Officers in relation to appellate orders and the binding effect of judicial precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer is bound by the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or higher appellate authorities, even if the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year has been appealed against, and if the Assessing Officer can refuse to implement an order under appeal without obtaining a stay or appropriate direction from a higher authority? (Question of law and fact turning on principles of administrative discipline and hierarchy). 2. Whether the Assessing Officer can disregard a Supreme Court decision by attempting to find 'distinguishing features', or is bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law turning on Article 141 of the Constitution). 3. Whether the Tribunal can question the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight or per incuriam? (Question of law turning on principles of jurisdictional discipline and hierarchy). Assessee's contentions (where discernible from the judgment's reasoning): The assessee argued that High Court judgments upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment were per incuriam. The judgment also implies that assessees contended that the Assessing Officer's refusal to implement appellate orders was justified if the decision for a different year was under appeal. Revenue's contentions (where discernible from the judgment's reasoning): The Revenue, through the Assessing Officer's stance, contended that the issue in question had not attained finality as the decision of the Tribunal for a different assessment year had been appealed against. The Revenue also implicitly argued for the binding nature of High Court judgments on 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(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 →