BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, SIRSA, HARYANA

ITA 483/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 November 2025AY 2018-1968 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, that an issue has not attained finality because the Tribunal's decision has been appealed, is wrong and required to be deprecated. The Tribunal emphasized that subordinate authorities cannot refuse to implement an order of the appellate authority without obtaining a stay or appropriate direction from a higher court. Furthermore, the Tribunal unequivocally stated that it is not open for an Assessing Officer to evade the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by finding distinguishing features, citing Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and authorities. Regarding the High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that it cannot sit in appeal over or test for per incuriam a judgment of the High Court. Therefore, High Court decisions 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 raised was decided against the assessees.

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. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and applicability of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning the taxability of certain income. The Assessing Officers had taken a stand that if the Tribunal's decision for a particular assessment year was appealed to a higher court, the issue had not attained finality, and they were not bound by the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal was tasked with deciding the common legal ground raised by the assessees.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer is justified in refusing to implement an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Tribunal's decision for a particular assessment year has been appealed against, thereby arguing that the issue has not attained finality? (Question of law, concerning procedural compliance and finality of appellate orders). 2. Whether the Assessing Officer can disregard a Supreme Court decision by attempting to find 'distinguishing features' or argue that the law declared by the Supreme Court is not binding? (Question of law, concerning the binding precedent of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution). 3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can question the binding force of a High Court judgment on the ground of alleged oversight (per incuriam)? (Question of law, concerning the hierarchy of courts and the principle of judicial discipline). Assessee's contentions (as inferred from the Tribunal's reasoning): The assessees argued that the Assessing Officers were bound to follow the Tribunal's orders and Supreme Court judgments, and that the Assessing Officers' refusal to do so was incorrect and objectionable. They also contended that High Court judgments could be per incuriam and therefore not binding. Revenue's contentions (as inferred from the Tribunal's reasoning): The Revenue, through the Assessing Officers, argued that if the Tribunal's decision was under appeal, the issue had not attained finality. They 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(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 →