Bombay HC Censures AO for Unconscionable Conduct, Disregarding Binding Judgement, Slaps Rs25,000 Fine
Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay high Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No. 3290 of 2024
Facts:
1. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had issued a re-assessment notice regarding a transaction of the assessee linked to demonetisation. This transaction had already been scrutinised and addressed in an earlier assessment order. The Bombay High Court had also issued a binding order.
2. The JAO, while responding to a writ petition filed by Samp Furniture Pvt Ltd, submitted an affidavit stating that the income-tax department did not agree with the Bombay High Court’s order.
Hon Bombay HC held as below:
1. It may be that the Revenue has not ‘accepted’ the judgment, but that does not mean that, until the decision is set aside by due process of law, it loses its binding force.
2. This is a reflection of the ‘very poor state of affairs’ within the tax administration. The filing of affidavits in response to writ petitions should not be treated as a mechanical formality devoid of substance.
3. The decisions of a jurisdictional High Court are binding on all parties, including the Revenue. So the petition is allowed. A penalty of Rs25,000 shall be imposed on both the JAO and the CCIT.
The copy of the order is as under:
