Chhattisgarh High Court Judgments — 2024

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the petitioner is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 0.5% per month from February 28, 2014, to December 27, 2016, as per Section 132B(4) of the Act. Since the seized cash was released on July 14, 2021, the petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% for the period from December 28, 2016, to July 14, 2021. Additionally, the petitioner is entitled to an additional interest of 3% for the same period, as per Section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found the department's inaction illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and CBDT circulars.

The High Court directed the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), to consider and decide the pending appeal filed in Form No. 35 bearing ARN No. 592521510210422 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court noted that the appeal was preferred on April 21, 2024. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court only addressed the procedural delay.

The Tribunal held that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) regarding the new circular dated 17.09.2024, which enhances the monetary limit for filing Income Tax Appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores, is fair and reasonable. Since the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, the instant Tax Case stands disposed of finally as withdrawn in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024. The circular clarifies that it shall apply to SLPs/appeals to be filed henceforth and also to pending SLPs/appeals which may accordingly be withdrawn. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, revises the monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. Paragraph 5 of this circular explicitly states that it shall apply to SLPs/appeals pending before High Courts, which may accordingly be withdrawn. Since the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court, in light of the aforesaid circular, disposed of the Tax Case finally as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn based on the revised monetary limits.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated 17.09.2024, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifies that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court is Rs. 2 Crores. Paragraph 5 of this circular explicitly states that it shall apply to SLPs/appeals to be filed henceforth and shall also apply to SLPs/appeals pending before the Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunal, which may accordingly be withdrawn. Since the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case finally as withdrawn, in accordance with the provisions of the circular.

The High Court allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner (Revenue) to withdraw the petitions. The reasoning provided was solely based on the submission that the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present cases was less than Rs. 2 crores, as per the circular dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn if they do not meet the monetary limits prescribed by administrative instructions.

The High Court allowed the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the tax petitions. The reasoning provided was that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the monetary limit (tax liability) in these cases was less than Rs. 2 crores, and in light of the circular dated 17.09.2024, they prayed for withdrawal. The Court found this submission acceptable and granted the prayer. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original tax disputes, and no issues were left undecided as the matter was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Respondent No. 1) to consider and decide the pending appeals, filed in Form No. 35 bearing ARN No. 182387510220424, within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. This direction was given keeping in mind that the appeal was preferred on April 22, 2024. The Court considered the limited grievance of the petitioner. No specific findings on the merits of the appeal were made, as the order focuses on procedural direction. The ratio is that statutory appeals should be decided within a reasonable time, and courts can direct authorities to expedite the process when there is undue delay.

The High Court held that the impugned orders dated June 14, 2024, and October 18, 2024, were non-speaking and were passed without adopting the correct procedure and without following the guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in KEC International Ltd. vs. B.R. Balakrishnan and Ors. and UTI Mutual Fund vs. Income Tax Officer, as also followed by this Court in M/s Aarti Sponge & Power Ltd. The Court found that the assessing officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had not properly considered the stay and review applications on merits, nor had they applied the 'trinity' principle. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 2) to consider the stay/review application afresh in light of the aforementioned guidelines. A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within three weeks after hearing the parties. Until the decision on the stay application, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner, and the petitioner was directed to appear on December 17, 2024.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Hiralal Bhagwati v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, which was approved by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat City Gymkhana. The principle established is that once registration under Section 12A(a) (now 12AA) of the IT Act is granted, the grant of benefit under Section 80G of the IT Act cannot be denied. The Supreme Court in Surat City Gymkhana held that once an application under Section 12A of the IT Act is granted, there is no need for further enquiry regarding the parties to the lis, whether it is for charitable purposes or otherwise. Therefore, since the assessee was registered under Section 12AA, its application under Section 80G(5) deserved to be allowed. The ITAT had rightly noticed this legal position and directed the CIT(E) to grant approval. The tax appeal was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal. The Court found no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner (appellant) was neither the seller nor the purchaser of the land. The grievance raised by the petitioner was that co-ownership property was sold by some co-owners, and he was not paid his share. The High Court agreed with the Single Judge's finding that the writ petition was not maintainable on this ground. Therefore, the intra-court appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the alleged benami transaction or the inaction of the authorities, as the appeal was dismissed on the maintainability of the writ petition.

The High Court held that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crores by the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024. As the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, and in light of paragraph 5 of the said circular which allows for withdrawal of pending appeals that do not meet the revised monetary limits, the instant Tax Case stands disposed of finally as withdrawn. The Court did not decide any substantive issue on merits.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and ITAT had concurrently erred in disallowing ₹62,32,262/- under Section 43B. The Court noted that it is an admitted position that the assessee did not claim this amount in its profit and loss account as an expenditure or deduction, nor did it claim a deduction under Section 43B. Therefore, the disallowance was not warranted. The Court relied on its own decision in M/s Ganapati Motors and the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noble & Hewitt (I) (P.) Ltd., which held that if an amount is not debited to the Profit & Loss Account as expenditure and no deduction is claimed, the question of disallowing a deduction not claimed does not arise. The impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

The High Court held that the issue is no longer res integra and stands decided by the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Hiralal Bhagwati v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat City Gymkhana. The principle laid down is that once registration under Section 12A(a) (now 12AA) of the IT Act is granted, the grant of benefit under Section 80G of the IT Act cannot be denied. The Supreme Court, in Surat City Gymkhana, affirmed that once an application under Section 12A of the IT Act is granted, there is no need for further inquiry regarding the parties to the trust or whether it is for charitable purposes. Therefore, since the assessee was registered under Section 12AA of the IT Act, no substantial question of law arises, and the appeal is dismissed in limine. The operative direction is the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the registration under Section 12AA. The Court noted that the ITAT, relying on the bye-laws of the assessee society, found that it had both charitable and religious objects. The Court cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Barkate Saifiyah Society, which held that Section 13(1)(b) applies only to purely charitable trusts and not to trusts with both charitable and religious objects. The Court also referred to the Rajasthan High Court's decision in CIT v. Vijay Vargiya Vani Charitable Trust, stating that at the time of granting registration, only the objects of the trust are to be looked into, and the genuineness of activities is not a criterion for initial registration. Therefore, the finding of the ITAT that the assessee society has both charitable and religious objects was considered a finding of fact, not perverse, and supported by evidence. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crores by the circular dated 17.09.2024. Since the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court, in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, disposed of the Tax Case finally as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of based on the circular.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) is fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been revised to Rs. 2 Crores by the circular dated 17.09.2024. As the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court, in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, disposed of the instant Tax Case finally as withdrawn. The circular explicitly states that it shall apply to SLPs/appeals pending before High Courts, which may accordingly be withdrawn. The Court did not decide any substantive issue on merits.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated September 17, 2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), revises the monetary limits for filing appeals. Specifically, the limit for appeals before the High Court has been increased to Rs. 2 Crores. Paragraph 5 of the circular states that it shall apply to SLPs/appeals to be filed henceforth and also to pending SLPs/appeals, which may accordingly be withdrawn. Since the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, and in light of the aforesaid circular, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of based on the circular.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. Citing paragraph 5 of the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024, which states that the modifications shall come into effect from the date of issue and shall apply to appeals pending before the High Courts, which may accordingly be withdrawn, the Court found that since the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crore, the instant Tax Case stands disposed of finally as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original appeal, as it was withdrawn based on the circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs.2 Crore by the circular dated 17.09.2024. As the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs.2 Crore, the Court, in light of paragraph 5 of the circular dated 17.09.2024, disposed of the Tax Case finally as withdrawn. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. Citing paragraph 5 of the Circular dated 17.09.2024, which states that the modifications shall apply to pending appeals and that such appeals may accordingly be withdrawn, the Court found that since the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crore, the appeal should be disposed of finally as withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original tax dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn based on administrative policy regarding litigation management.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission of the petitioner's counsel regarding the new circular dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. This circular revised the monetary limits for filing Income Tax Appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. Since the tax liability in the present case was stated to be less than Rs. 2 Crores, and paragraph 5 of the circular permits the withdrawal of pending appeals that do not meet the revised criteria, the High Court found the prayer to be fair and reasonable. The operative direction was to dispose of the Tax Case as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. As the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, and in light of paragraph 5 of the circular which allows for withdrawal of pending appeals that do not meet the revised monetary limits, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the new circular dated 17.09.2024, specifically paragraph 5, states that it shall apply to SLPs/appeals pending before Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunal, which may accordingly be withdrawn. Since the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case was less than Rs.2 Crores, and in light of the aforesaid circular, the Tribunal disposed of the Tax Case as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the prayer made by the appellant (Revenue) to dispose of the appeals finally in light of the new circular dated 17.09.2024 was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crores. As the tax liability in the present cases was less than this enhanced limit, and in light of paragraph 5 of the circular which allows for withdrawal of pending appeals, the High Court disposed of both Tax Cases as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the administrative decision to reduce litigation by adhering to the revised monetary limits. No decision on the merits of the original tax dispute was made.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crores by the circular dated 17.09.2024. Since the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, and in light of paragraph 5 of the said circular which allows for withdrawal of pending appeals, the Court disposed of the Tax Case as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn based on the circular.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crores by the circular dated 17.09.2024. Since the tax liability in the present cases was less than Rs. 2 Crores, and in light of paragraph 5 of the said circular which permits withdrawal of pending appeals, the High Court disposed of both Tax Cases as withdrawn. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeals.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Income Tax Officer) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crores vide the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024. Since the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court, in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular which states that pending appeals may be withdrawn, disposed of the instant Tax Case as withdrawn. The Court did not decide the merits of the case.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, had issued a circular dated 17.09.2024, revising the monetary limits for filing Income Tax appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. Since the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, and in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case as withdrawn. The circular itself clarifies that it applies to appeals pending before High Courts and that such appeals may be withdrawn. The reasoning is based on the administrative decision to reduce litigation by adhering to enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals.

The High Court held that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was fair and reasonable. In light of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, specifically paragraph 5 which states that the modifications shall apply to SLPs/appeals pending before High Courts and may accordingly be withdrawn, and considering that the monetary limit (tax liability) in the present case is less than Rs.2 Crore, the instant Tax Case was disposed of finally as withdrawn. The court did not decide the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2 Crore by the circular dated 17.09.2024. As the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crore, and in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, which allows for the withdrawal of pending appeals, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case finally as withdrawn. The reasoning is based on the updated litigation policy of the department aimed at reducing unnecessary litigation. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated 17.09.2024, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revises the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. Since the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the Tax Case finally in light of the aforesaid circular, specifically paragraph 5 which states that the circular shall apply to SLPs/appeals pending before High Courts and may accordingly be withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the Tax Case finally.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated 17.09.2024, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. Since the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the Tax Case finally in accordance with the aforesaid circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the Tax Case finally.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the new circular dated September 17, 2024, has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. As the tax liability in the present case was less than this prescribed limit, the Court, in light of paragraph 5 of the said circular which states that it shall apply to pending appeals which may accordingly be withdrawn, disposed of the instant Tax Case finally. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal finally.

The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the Assessee Society's registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Barkate Saifiyah Society and the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Vijay Vargiya Vani Charitable Trust. These judgments indicated that Section 13(1)(b) applies only to purely charitable trusts, and if a trust has both charitable and religious objects, Section 13(1)(b) would not apply. Furthermore, the Court noted that at the time of granting registration, only the objects of the trust are to be looked into, and the genuineness of activities is not the primary criterion for initial registration. The Court found that the Assessee Society's application clearly stated objects including imparting education, relief of the poor, advancement of general public utility, and working for the betterment of the Kanyakubj Society and the public at large. Therefore, the Assessee had both charitable and religious objects. The High Court concluded that the ITAT's finding was a pure finding of fact based on evidence and was neither perverse nor contrary to law. No substantial question of law was found to be involved.

The High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court under Section 55(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act, 2005, is restricted to 'any question of law arising out of such order'. The Court emphasized that reference jurisdiction is consultative and advisory, not appellate or revisional. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it was clarified that the High Court advises the Tribunal, and it is for the Tribunal to give effect to that advice. The Tribunal's order dated October 28, 2022, dealt with factual issues regarding concessional rates of tax and interest on delayed payment. The Tribunal itself, while considering the reference application, found these to be pure findings of fact and that reopening factual controversies was not permissible in a reference application. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for reference. Consequently, the High Court declined to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 55(3) of the Act, finding the Tribunal's refusal to be justified. The application under Section 55(2)(b) was dismissed.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the Circular dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, revises the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. As the tax effect in the present case is less than this revised limit, the Court decided to dispose of the Tax Case finally in accordance with paragraph 5 of the said circular, which states that the modifications shall apply to appeals to be filed henceforth and also to pending appeals which may accordingly be withdrawn. The operative direction is that the Tax Case stands disposed of finally.

The High Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been revised to Rs. 2 Crores by the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024. Since the tax liability in the present case is less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Court, in light of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid circular which states that the circular shall apply to appeals pending before High Courts and may accordingly be withdrawn, disposed of the instant Tax Case finally. The principle is that appeals falling below the revised monetary threshold are to be withdrawn or disposed of, unless they fall under specified exceptions which were not argued here.

The High Court held that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) is fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the tax liability in the present case is Rs. 1,34,26,737/-, which is less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 2 Crores for filing appeals before the High Court, as stipulated in the circular dated 17.09.2024. The Court referred to paragraph 5 of the circular dated 17.09.2024, which states that the modifications shall come into effect from the date of issue of the circular and will apply to appeals to be filed henceforth, and also to pending appeals which may accordingly be withdrawn. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case finally in light of the aforesaid circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal finally.

The High Court held that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is fair and reasonable. The Court noted that the tax liability in the present case is Rs. 1,83,51,566/-, which is less than Rs. 2 Crores. In light of Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, as revised by the subsequent circular dated 17.09.2024, which specifies the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as Rs. 2 Crores, and considering that this circular applies to pending appeals which may accordingly be withdrawn, the instant Tax Case stands disposed of finally. The reasoning is based on the enhanced monetary limit and the instruction to withdraw pending appeals below the new limit. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) regarding the new circular dated 17.09.2024. This circular, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revises the monetary limits for filing appeals. Specifically, it sets the monetary limit for appeals before the High Court at Rs. 2 Crores. The circular also states that it shall apply to pending appeals, which may accordingly be withdrawn. Since the tax liability in the present case was stated to be less than Rs. 2 Crores, the High Court found the Revenue's prayer to be fair and reasonable. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Tax Case finally in light of the aforesaid circular.

The Tribunal held that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, had issued a new circular dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing Income Tax Appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 Crores. Since the tax liability in the present case was less than Rs. 2 Crores, the Tribunal, in light of paragraph 5 of the said circular, disposed of the Tax Case. The circular explicitly states that it shall apply to appeals to be filed henceforth and also to pending appeals, which may accordingly be withdrawn. The reasoning is based on the administrative decision to manage litigation by setting monetary thresholds for appeals, and the present case falling below the revised threshold.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. The Court noted that the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals), despite numerous notices. While additional documents were admitted by the ITAT, the explanation provided (that the amount was collected as a recovery agent for M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited from borrowers in naxal-affected areas) was not found to be reasonable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, the Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities, if based on the assessee's failure to rebut presumptions under Section 68 and provide satisfactory explanations, do not give rise to a substantial question of law, unless perversity is demonstrated. The ITAT's conclusion that the assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits was deemed a correct finding of fact based on the record. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

The High Court held that both the CIT(E) and ITAT failed to record a specific finding on whether the appellant University exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, which is a prerequisite for rejecting an application under Section 10(23C)(vi). The Court noted that the authorities should have considered the university's objects and activities to determine if it was solely for educational purposes or for profit. No express finding was recorded regarding the satisfaction of objects and genuineness of activities as required by the second proviso to Section 10(23C). Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remitted to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh in light of the Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Educational Society, particularly paragraph 82, within two months. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application.

The High Court held that since the assessees have made a full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and have paid the settlement amounts on February 8, 2021, and March 1, 2021, which was not disputed by the Revenue, no cause of action survives for the consideration of the tax appeals. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of. The operative direction was to dispose of the tax cases. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, to consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The Court set an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order for the decision to be made. The Court did not delve into the merits of the appeal itself but focused on ensuring its timely adjudication. The reasoning was based on the facts presented, including the long pendency of the appeal and the explanation provided by the revenue for the delay. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must ensure timely disposal of appeals filed under tax statutes, and courts can direct such action when undue delays occur.

The Division Bench held that the writ appeal was not maintainable. It noted that the appellant had already filed a statutory appeal under Section 246-A of the IT Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax against the reassessment order dated 31.03.2022, which was pending. The Court observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax would consider and decide all questions raised before it, including the initiation of the reassessment notice, the rejection of the objection, and the validity and correctness of the reassessment order, in accordance with the law and on its own merits, without being influenced by the Single Bench's order. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's specific ground that they were not served with the information and material relied upon by the Revenue along with the notice under Section 148A(b) was not opposed by the respondent-department. The Court referred to the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2022, which mandates enclosing all relevant information and supporting documents, and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agrawal (2023) 1 SCC 617. In Ashish Agrawal, the Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 could be deemed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), and the Assessing Officer should provide the information and material relied upon within thirty days. Considering these points, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass orders afresh on the notice under Section 148A(b) after supplying all relevant materials and information, providing an opportunity of hearing, and keeping in mind the CBDT guidelines and the Supreme Court's observations.

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the ITAT was not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 530 days. The Court reasoned that the assessee had bona fide availed the remedy of rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The Court noted that if the rectification application had been allowed, subsequent appellate findings would have become infructuous. Therefore, the time spent diligently pursuing the rectification application ought to have been condoned. The Court emphasized that the facts should be viewed collectively rather than in fragments. The High Court disagreed with the ITAT's finding that the delay was not properly explained as bona fide. Consequently, the delay of 530 days was condoned, and the case was remitted back to the ITAT for adjudication afresh on its merits. The question of law was answered in favor of the appellant.

The High Court held that the ITAT was legally justified in not remanding the case back to the assessing officer for fresh assessment because the order of initiation of reassessment was declared void. The Court noted that the limitation period for framing the reassessment order under Section 147/143(3) had lapsed on March 31, 1997, as per Section 153 of the Act. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer and CIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., the Court emphasized that courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and must enforce statutory provisions. The Court observed that the Revenue could initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with law if permissible. Consequently, the appeals preferred by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. The question of law regarding the AO's order being passed on the dictates of superior authorities was held in favor of the assessee.