BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's stand that they could refuse to implement an order because the decision of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year had been appealed against was incorrect and required strong deprecation. The Tribunal emphasized that subordinate authorities must implement orders under appeal unless an order of stay or other appropriate direction is obtained from a higher authority. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it is not open for an Assessing Officer to evade the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by trying to find distinguishing features, referencing Article 141 of the Constitution. Regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment, the Tribunal, following jurisdictional discipline and hierarchy, held that it could not question the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight. The assessee's argument that such judgments were per incuriam was rejected. Consequently, the common legal ground raised was decided against the assessee. As a result, all appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed, and the orders passed by the Assessing Officers were restored and upheld. Appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and their respective 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 challenged orders passed by Income Tax Officers (ITOs) and Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax (ACITs) for assessment years ranging from 2012-13 to 2018-19. The core of the dispute revolved around a common legal ground raised by the assessees, which was decided against them. The Tribunal noted that some Assessing Officers had refused to implement orders under appeal, citing pending appeals against decisions in the assessee's own cases or attempting to distinguish Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether High Court judgments upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment could be disregarded as per incuriam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer can refuse to implement an order under appeal on the grounds that the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year has been appealed against, thus the issue has not attained finality? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Assessing Officer can evade the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by attempting to find distinguishing features? (Question of law) 3. Whether a Tribunal can question the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight, or deem it per incuriam? Assessee's contentions (implied from the judgment's discussion): The assessees argued that the Assessing Officers' refusal to implement orders was incorrect, especially when the issue had not attained finality due to pending appeals. They also contended that High Court judgments upholding Section 56(2)(viii) were per incuriam and thus not binding. The assessees relied on the principle that subordinate authorities must follow appellate orders and Supreme Court decisions. Revenue's contentions (implied from the judgment's discussion): The Revenue, through the CIT DR, argued that the Assessing Officers were justified in their actions, and that the High Court judgments were binding and correctly applied. They supported the upholding of Section 56(2)(viii) post-amendment.

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 : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : 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 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 →