SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

ITA 243/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 November 2025AY 2018-1968 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officers' refusal to implement orders under appeal without obtaining a stay from a higher authority is unacceptable and undermines administrative discipline and the efficacy of appellate remedies. It was further held that an Assessing Officer cannot evade the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by attempting to find distinguishing features, citing Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which mandates adherence to laws declared by the Supreme Court. Regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii), the Tribunal respectfully followed the principle that it cannot sit in appeal over or test for per incuriam a judgment of a High Court. Therefore, decisions of Hon'ble High Courts upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment could not be disregarded, and the assessee's argument that such judgments were per incuriam was rejected. Consequently, the common legal ground was decided against the assessees. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate individual grounds as they became academic. All appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed, and the orders of the Assessing Officer were restored and upheld. Appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and their orders were sustained.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A', heard multiple appeals filed by various assessees and the Revenue. The appeals pertained to different assessment years, ranging from 2012-13 to 2018-19. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following an amendment. The Assessing Officers had taken a stand that since their decisions were appealed against, the issues had not attained finality, and they also attempted to distinguish Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal noted that the assessees' appeals were dismissed, and the Revenue's appeals were allowed, with the Assessing Officer's orders being upheld or sustained.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer can refuse to implement an order under appeal without obtaining a stay or appropriate direction from a higher appellate authority, such as the Tribunal or the Supreme Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Assessing Officer is justified in disregarding a Supreme Court decision by attempting to find 'distinguishing features' or arguing that the issue has not attained finality due to pending appeals? (Question of law) 3. Whether decisions of Hon'ble High Courts upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment can be disregarded by the Tribunal on the ground of alleged oversight (per incuriam)? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions (implied from the Tribunal's findings): The assessees argued that the Assessing Officers' actions were improper, particularly their refusal to comply with appellate orders and their attempts to distinguish binding Supreme Court precedents. They also contended that High Court judgments upholding Section 56(2)(viii) were per incuriam and should not be followed. Revenue's contentions (implied from the Tribunal's findings): The Revenue's position, as reflected in the Assessing Officers' actions, was that the issues were not final due to pending appeals and that Supreme Court decisions could be distinguished. They also relied on High Court judgments that upheld the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii).

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 निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : 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 बनाम The ITO Ward-5, Ambala स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CAYPK4198R अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : 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 अपीलार

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 →