ND's Art World Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 119(2)(b); 139
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
India1, Tata Autocomp Gotion Green Energy Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes2 and Bharat Education Society vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Exemption-1(1) Mumbai 3 in support of her contention. 5.
reasoning reflected therein. He refers to the Central Secretariat Manual for Office Procedure and stresses paragraph 9.3, which deals with the authentication of Government orders. He also refers to the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, to justify making the impugned order by the Additional CIT (OSD) (OT & WT). He submits that the Petitioner was found to be a habitual defaulter when it comes to filing the return of income. For all these reasons, Mr. Narayanan submits that this petition may be dismissed. 7. 1 2 3
Appellant / assessee submissions
Heard Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.
Revenue / respondent submissions
Narayanan, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
reasoning reflected therein. He refers to the Central Secretariat Manual for Office Procedure and stresses paragraph 9.3, which deals with the authentication of Government orders. He also refers to the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, to justify making the impugned order by the Additional CIT (OSD) (OT & WT). He submits that the Petitioner was found to be a habitual defaulter when it comes to filing the return of income. For all these reasons, Mr. Narayanan submits that this petition may be dismissed. 7. 1 2 3
The rival contentions now fall for our determination. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 16 (Bombay) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 643 (Bombay) Writ Petition (L) No.21487 of 2024 dtd. 21 January 2025. Page 2 of 6
competent authority approving the making of this order by the Additional CIT (OSD) (OT & WT). In any event, this Court had to interfere with similar orders made by officers who neither had any authorisation from the CBDT to make such orders nor any authorisation from CBDT members. This is assuming that the CBDT or its members could have delegated such powers to the officers like Additional CIT (OSD) (OT & WT). There is a difference between the CBDT or its authorised member making an order and some other officers making an order with the approval, even of the member of the CBDT. 10.
behalf of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), in which an order similar to that made in this petition was sought to be justified by contending the following: “12. In the affidavit filed by Mr Salil Mishra, Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), the contention regarding the impugned order not being made by the CBDT or its Member is answered in paragraph 9, which reads as follows:“9. Further the petitioner has taken the plea in the writ petition that the order has been passed by an officer without jurisdiction, as the show cause notice dated 06.07.2023 was issued by the DCIT(OSD) (ITA Cell) and the condonation order has been passed by the Addl. CIT (ITACell) with the approval of Member(IT). The petitioner has also contended whether the DCIT(OSD)(ITA Cell) or the Addl.CIT (ITA Cell) were competent to issue the show cause notice and pass the order and whether the authority as per whose direction/approval the said order has been passed, has applied his mind to the issues arising in the case. In this connection, it is submitted that CBDT functions through its Members and the work allocation has been done amongst the Members. All the Members of the CBDT are the Special...
tax Act, 1961 received in the Board are processed in the office of the concerned Member after proper consideration of facts and circumstances of each case. The work relating to the Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on matters related to Sections 10, 11, 12 & 13 have been assigned to Member (IT) in CBDT. The orders in these cases are approved by Member concerned and after approval; these orders are issued with the signature of the officer, who is not below the rank of Under Secretary to Govt. of India, in the office of the Member. Considering the extant office procedure and practices being followed, the Addl. CIT (ITA Cell) has signed the order after taking approval of the Member concerned In last para of the Order, it has been clearly mentioned that the Order issues with the approval of Member (IT), CBDT.”
reasoning in this regard is in paragraph 13, which reads as follows:“13. The reply suggests that the CBDT functions through its Members, and the works are allotted amongst the Members of the CBDT who are Special Secretaries to the Government of India. The affidavit states that the member is allocated the work of considering applications/Petitions under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. There is a specific statement in the affidavit that the work relating to orders under Section 119 of the IT Act on matters pertaining to Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been assigned to Member (IT) in the CBDT.”
justification for a similar order was not accepted by yet another Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph 6 of R. K. Madhani Prakash Engineers J
V (supra) reads as follows: “6. Before we proceed further, we should note that pursuant to Circular F No.312/22/2015-OT dated 9th June 2015 issued by CBDT, application/claim for amount exceeding Rs.50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. We say this because the last sentence in the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 reads; “This order is passed with the approval of the Member (TPS & Systems), CBDT.” There is nothing to indicate that Board has considered petitioner's application. We also find that copy of the impugned order dated 24th December 2020 is sent to, (a) the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (b) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-21, Mumbai, (c) Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell, Bengaluru, (d) the applicant and (e) the Guard Page 4 of 6
Operative decision and relief
File but it is not sent to the Member on whose approval the said order is supposed to have been passed. In our view, this means the Member has not passed the order but has been passed by the Director. On this ground alone, this order has to be quashed and set aside.”
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- She relies on R. K. Madhani Prakash Engineers J V vs. Union of
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Keep registration, audit-report, Form 10/10B/10BB and filing timestamps together; many exemption disputes are procedural and depend on when the form existed versus when it was uploaded.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 119(2)(b), 139.
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: India1, Tata Autocomp Gotion Green Energy Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2020-21 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in ND's Art World Pvt. Ltd.?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
India1, Tata Autocomp Gotion Green Energy Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes2 and Bharat Education Society vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Exemption-1(1) Mumbai 3 in support of her contention.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
File but it is not sent to the Member on whose approval the said order is supposed to have been passed. In our view, this means the Member has not passed the order but has been passed by the Director. On this ground alone, this order has to be quashed and set aside.”
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 119(2)(b), 139. The relevant statutory version for AY 2020-21 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 119(2)(b) — 119(2)(b) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 139 — 139 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 119(2)(b), 139 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: She relies on R. K. Madhani Prakash Engineers J V vs. Union of
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 6 |
| SHA-256 | fb0ee546dc8a8e274e3b61d3deccc3672cef5282a4a28e489dfc53f583ec2a28 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |