← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO
187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
5 DTR 429 · High Court
50
citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

Baboo Ram Hari Chand, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2015-16]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

against the order dated 27.10.2023 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) rejecting the appeal of the assessee against the penalty order dated 23.09.2022 under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.60,000/- on the ground of non-compliance of notices issued under Section ... that the A.O. having accepted the returned income in the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 under Section 153C of the Act, no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was leviable in the case of the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR relied upon the decisions

Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Ratlam vs. ITO-1, Ratlam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 322/IND/2024[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Indore16 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer-1, 77, Tashakand Marg, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agcph3330A Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 525/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 524/DEL/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 523/DEL/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 522/DEL/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 521/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 520/DEL/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

B H Trading Co, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 519/DEL/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)

Rs.60,000/- for the A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 for non-compliance of notices under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. None present on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR has submitted that

Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 2162/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 217Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Faceless Appeals Centre) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b); disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case.” 6. Before proceeding further, we proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay ... thus supported and relied upon the judgment of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions. Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act provides as under: “Section 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the °%[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals

Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the

ITA 2161/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 217Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Faceless Appeals Centre) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b); disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case.” 6. Before proceeding further, we proceed to decide the application for condonation of delay ... thus supported and relied upon the judgment of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have considered the submissions. Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act provides as under: “Section 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the °%[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals

Lalita Niranjan Mayadeo, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4461/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker (Sr. D/R)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Dolatrai Manganlal Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1077/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Dolatrai Manganlal Desai Ito, Ward-2 A-501, Keshav Priya Apartment Vs Vapi. Nr. Gopal Nagar Memnagar Ahmedabad 380 052. Pan : Ackpd 5590 N (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jaymin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Jaymin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year : 2012-13 Dolatrai Manganlal

Viral Vinodchandra Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 612/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले

Santosh Maruti Pawar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1311/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1311/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Maruti Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. At Post Gopal Wadi, Daund, Pune- 413801. Pan : Bhrpp4140F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shir Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly. The Ld. Ar With The Help Of Delay Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Submitting The Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Hepatomegaly & Undergoing

For Appellant: Shir Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 3

factual position of the same. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b). 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying penalty of Rs.1,56,560/- under section 271(1

Jignesh Pravinbhai Rana, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of filing the appeal by 94 days in the matter of Section 271(1)© and 124 days in the matter of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. It may be noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A) and the AO. During the course

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

ITA 690/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)(V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक