2022 (10) TMI 1176 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of approval u/s 153D - sanctity of the approval obtained by the AO from Additional Commissioner under Section 153D - as stated approval sought by AO in almost 35 cases (including that of the Petitioner) was granted instantaneously without following the rules - HELD THAT - Petitioner states that there has been failure on part of the Respondents to follow the fundamental principles of judicial discipline and hierarchy which provide for following the judgments and orders passed by the higher judicial forum by the lower judicial forum or the officers/ authorities subordinate thereto. In the opinion of this Court petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy by way of an appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to urge all his contentions and submissions before the ITAT. Petitioner presses for stay of the demand.This Court is of the view that the petitioner has the option to file an interim application before the Tribunal. Needless to state that if such an application is filed the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2009-10, Seeking guidelines for following superior authorities' judgments.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The petitioner sought directions for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-07 to issue guidelines for following binding orders/judgments of superior authorities. The petitioner's counsel highlighted a previous order by the ITAT which invalidated the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The counsel argued that the approval in multiple cases, including the petitioner's case, was granted without following proper procedures. It was contended that the respondents failed to adhere to the principles of judicial discipline and hierarchy by not following judgments of higher forums.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy through an appeal before the ITAT. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to present all contentions before the ITAT. The petitioner's counsel requested a stay on the demand, but the Court suggested filing an interim application before the Tribunal for such relief. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the dispute, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open. Ultimately, the writ petition and the application were disposed of, emphasizing the availability of remedies through the ITAT and the option to seek interim relief through proper procedures.