Cwp/18648/2023 Of M/S Ajay Electronics v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1

263. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT.CHANDIGARH CWPFT8&64F2023(O&M)Date ofDecision: 29.02.2024 M/s. AJAYELECTRONICS, DHANGUROAD, PATHANKOT ..... Petitioner V/s| PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1I, AAYAKARBHAWAN, MAQBOOL ROAD, AMRITSAR, DISTRICTAMRITSAR.weve Aespondent| CORAMHON3BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEFEVPRAKASH SHARMAHON3BLE MRS, JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present:Mr. Tarsem Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. RRR SANJEEVPRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1,The petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has approached this|Court on the basis of order sheet drawn in the pending Appeal filed before|the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Divisional Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle VI, Pathankot from which it would be apposite to note asunder:- “Ld. AR seeks liberty to approach to the Hon’ble HighCourt for the purposes/directions for admission of additionallegal grounds/supporting the order of CIT (A) in terms ofRule|27. The liberty as sought is granted. Now to come up in due|course.” 2.It is noticed that the Appeal pending before the Appellate)Tribunal is in terms of the judgement passed by this Court earlier in ITA|No 286 of 2014 decided on 15.09.2016 titled asCommissioner of IncomeTax, IT, AmritsarVs_M/s. Ajay Electronics 3.While deciding the aforesaid case, this Court neither conformed|to the observations of the Commissioner nor the order passed by the Tribunaland directed the Tribunal to take a fresh decision on merits by remanding thecase to it. It observed that the Tribunal was the final fact finding authorityand has failed to properly analyze the evidence on record. The Commissioner|Income Tax order granting deletion of Rs.1,70,000/- from the income of the|assessee was not approved by this Court and the same was Set aside. Thus, it was open for the petitioner to take any plea in support of the order of the CITwhile the case was being heard by the Tribunal upon remand. 4.In the present Writ Petition, taking up the plea that the Tribunal|ought to have allowed him to raise additional legal grounds in support of theorder passed by the CIT in terms of Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules,|however, the Tribunal has failed to take notice of his submissions, and_therefore, he moved an application seeking liberty to approach this Court for|the purpose. 5 In our considered view, the judgment passed by the High Court|dated 15.09.2016 was passed after hearing both the parties. All the legalsubmissions raised before the Court were examined. The liberty sought for bythe petitioner amounts to seeking a review of the order passed by the High|Court earlier dated 15.09.2016 which cannot be allowed in a Separate set ofproceedings.The plea taken by the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to|forestall the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whichcannot be appreciated. | 6.The present Writ Petition is a clear case of abuse of process of|Court, therefore, the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be|deposited by the petitioner with the Legal Services Committee, High Court. 7.It is made clear that the Tribunal shall decide the Appeal on|merits as directed earlier by the Court. 8 All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed ofaccordingly.| ISANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]JUDGE.February 29, 2024ISUDEEPTISHARMA|ESS KayJUDGEWhether speaking / reasoned|Yes/ NoWhether ReportableYes/ No