TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside (i) the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 1 (Exhibit "A") and (ii) the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit B); (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prohibiting the Respondents fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd into stock-in-trade and subsequent sale of units/flats on godown solely based on the assessment order of A.Y. 2013-14. 5. By his Assessment Order dated 28.03.2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the Capital Gains of Rs. 12,83,31,400/- under Section 45(2) of the Act and raised a demand of Rs. 7,63,90,220/-, notwithstanding the fact that Assessment Orders for A.Y.s 2013-14 to 2015-2016 making identical addition on account of Capital Gains were set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short "CIT(A)"] and the said orders of CIT(A) were upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "ITAT"). The Assessing Officer did not follow the orders of the ITAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and challenged before this Court by filing Appeals, would be binding in absence of any stay by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Petitioner submits that the impugned demand is ex-facie contrary to orders of the ITAT and the impugned demand cannot be sustained as there is no justification on part of the Respondents in directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,78,044/- being 20% of the demand arising out of the Assessment Order dated 28th March 2022. The Petitioner contends that it has made out a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience is in its favour. 12. The Respondents, in its Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26th October 2023, have mainly contended that the demand is the subject matter of Appeal pending before the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. Therefore, the entire basis for reopening cannot be sustained as being contrary to the orders of the ITAT. 17. Further, we find that this Court, in its judgment dated 12th April 2024 in Petitioner's own case for A.Y. 2012-2013, inter alia, has held as under:- "12. Moreover, the entire basis for reopening the assessment was that assessment orders under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act were passed for Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 and the order under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-2015 was passed by making the following additions : (1) 8% profit treating contractor. (2) Addition as per A.Y. 2012-13. (3) Proportionate income. (4) Loss claimed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. Admittedly, the order of the ITAT, which is challenged in appeal in this Court, has not been suspended. Therefore, the order of the ITAT is certainly binding on the Revenue." 18. Even otherwise, we find that the said orders passed by ITAT, which are subject matter of Appeals before this Court, and which are pending admission, are not stayed by this Court and are binding on the Respondents. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC) did not approve the approach of the officials of the revenue of treating decisions of the Appellate Tribunal as "not acceptable".....