Revenue Officers Bound By Decisions Of Appellate Authorities While Disposing Quasi-Judicial Issues: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the revenue officers are bound by the decisions of appellate authorities while disposing of quasi-judicial issues.

The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale has observed that the mere fact that the order is not acceptable to the department, in itself an objectionable phrase, can furnish no ground for not following it, unless its operation has been suspended by the competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result would only be undue harassment of assessees and chaos in the administration of tax laws.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the respondent rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The order stated that the assessee has himself accepted that the tolerance limit of 5% between the declared sales consideration and the stamp duty valuation was inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from April 1, 2019. This was subsequently enhanced to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020, with effect from April 1, 2021. When the act itself lays down that these amendments would come into effect prospectively from 01.04.2019 to 01.04.2021, there is no question of holding that these amendments were retrospective in nature. The assessee has not produced any judgments of the High Court or Supreme Court holding that these amendments were to be applied retrospectively. The Hon'ble ITAT judgments relied upon by the assessee have not been accepted by the Department and are therefore of no help to the assessee.

The petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., in which it was held that the Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of Appellate Authorities. The order of the appellate collector is binding on the assistant collectors working within his jurisdiction, etc.

The court has held that the respondent department should have realised that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, was binding upon him, and the principles of judicial discipline required that orders of the highest appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.

The court quashed, set aside the order, and remanded the matter to the respondent for de- facto consideration.

Counsel For Appellant: Sanket Bora

Counsel For Respondent: Suresh Kumar

Case Title: M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14178 Of 2023

Click Here To Read The Order