Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Federation Ltd.




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.8522 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Appellant

Versus

M/s Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

**** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral):

[1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] in M.A. No.46/Chd/2017 in ITA No.710/ Chd/2013, rejecting an application for modification and rectification.

[2] The brief facts are that the assessee was claiming some deduction. The matter had earlier gone to the Tribunal which had remitted it back to the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT]. The CIT allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the Revenue went up to the Tribunal which dismissed its appeal and the same was

 carried to this court by way of Income Tax Appeal bearing ITA No.26 of 2017 wherein following questions were raised:-

 

           

    

      

 



 

  



       


!"!!#$%%!&'

   

    

 ( 

           



 (  )   

           

    

      

 



 

                 

   


!"!!#$%%!&'



*+      

  

 

 +  )   

           

    

      

 



 

  



            

    

      , -.

 /

  





*+)0 [3] However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed holding as follows:

"1/   

 

         



   



   

  

   



 '

 /+

2  

  2 

   

   /0

 [4] It was, thereafter, that the application for rectification was made before the Tribunal on the ground that question No.(iii) (supra) had not been addressed and vide impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the same holding as follows:-
 

  

 

   3  2     

 

     

/              3    

 



     4  



       3      '         

  

 

     

 

   3

 +  

  

    

        

3    



  

5, -6  +      +    



  3   

  7#/7/78#9/  

 

    

:/

 

  



 0/ [5] In our considered opinion, the application has been rightly rejected. The question No.(iii) (supra) may have been raised in the ground of appeal as urged by learned counsel for the Revenue but it was not argued and that is why this Court has dismissed the appeal.

[6] If as is now being argued, the Tribunal had not addressed the question while deciding the appeal, this argument should have been taken before this Court while arguing ITA No.26 of

 2017 but once this court has dismissed the appeal, it is not open to the appellant to go back to the Tribunal with that argument. [7] In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

[8] The appeal stands dismissed.

[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 27, 2020

4--