Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act
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 155 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.
The legislature is presumed not to enact provisions that defeat the purpose of other related provisions or take away with one hand what it gives with the other, a principle applied in the interpretation of tax statutes.
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.
This case defines the concept of "absurdity" in statutory interpretation, construing it to include results that are unworkable, impractical, illogical, or unjust. It guides that enacted law should not set a standard which is palpably unfair, unreasonable, or makes no sense.
Judgments on Section 153(4)
Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8
