Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.286
Section 153(4) falls under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 286 (Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Read section 286 of the 2025 Act
Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.
The decision most relied on for Section 153(4) is 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India (2 SCC 181), cited in 318 of the 82 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 153(4)
If an issue has been decided by a competent court or bench, and that decision remains undisturbed by a higher court, subsequent appeals on the same issue can be dismissed as being covered by the earlier judgment, underscoring judicial discipline.
An Income-tax Tribunal, operating anywhere in the country, must respect and follow the law laid down by any High Court, even if it is a non-jurisdictional High Court, as long as there is no contrary decision from another High Court on that specific legal point. The law declared by such a High Court is considered the final law of the land for the Tribunal.
A statute must be read as a whole, construing every clause with reference to its context and other provisions, to determine the legislature's real intention and ensure a consistent enactment. This principle, known as "ex visceribus actus," helps avoid inconsistencies within the law.
Statutory authorities must exercise their suo motu or revisional powers within a reasonable period, even if the governing statute does not prescribe a specific limitation period. What constitutes a 'reasonable period' depends on the nature of the statute, the rights and liabilities involved, and other relevant factors.
Courts must reject interpretations that defeat the plain intention of the legislature, even if language is imprecise. A statute must be read as a whole, construing provisions harmoniously to avoid rendering any part otiose or a dead letter.
The Supreme Court holds that legislative intent must be ascertained by reading the statute as a whole, construing one provision with reference to others to ensure a consistent enactment. Courts must consider the entire statute and its setting, not just the specific clauses, even if the language used has some inexactitude.
To ascertain legislative intent, courts must construe a statute as a whole, comparing clauses with other parts of the law and their setting to avoid inconsistency or repugnancy between sections.
The absence of a specific limitation period for recovery of duty or tax does not, by itself, render a rule arbitrary or unconstitutional under Article 14, provided authorities act with expedition and adhere to principles of natural justice.
Courts must interpret statutes to avoid absurdity, meaning results that are unworkable, illogical, or unjust. This principle guides the avoidance of contradictions between different sections of the same Act.
