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

������������������� ��� ��� 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 Versus Appellant M/s Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.,Chandigarh Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'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 theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 18.05.2018 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] in M.A. No.46/Chd/2017 inITA No.710/ Chd/2013, rejecting an application for modification andrectification. [2]The brief facts are that the assessee was claiming somededuction. The matter had earlier gone to the Tribunal which hadremitted it back to the Commissioner of Income Tax . The CITallowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the Revenue wentup to the Tribunal which dismissed its appeal and the same was ITA No.8522 of 2018 [2] carried to this court by way of Income Tax Appeal bearing ITA No.26of 2017 wherein following questions were raised:- “(D)“Whether on the _ facts acircumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’bleITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of therevenue by ignoring the fact that the said amountofCc39, 33,16,443/- was originally offered by thassessee for taxation and later the same wasreducedfrom taxable income?| (11)Whether on the _ facts acircumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’bleITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of therevenue despite the fact that the assessee hadreflected the said amount of|39 33,16,443/- asreceivable from FCI in a writ petition filed by ttbefore the Hon’ble High Court?| (111)Whether on the _ facts acircumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’bleITAT was right in dismissing the appeal of therevenue by ignoring the fact that the assessee hadalso claimed deduction of the amount of cessactually paid to Punjab Govt., claiming it to bepaid on behalfof FCI?” [3]follows: However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed holding as “1/Thefindings recorded by the Tribunalare pure findings of the fact which have not beenshown to be illegal or perverse by the learnedcounsel for appellant-revenue. Consequently, nosubstantial question of law arises and the appealstands dismissed. ITA No.8522 of 2018 [3] [4]It was, thereafter, that the application for rectification wasmade before the Tribunal on the ground that question No.(iii) (supra)had not been addressed and vide impugned order, the Tribunal hasdismissed the same holding as follows:- “In view of this, the application filed by theDepartment requires dismissal being barred bylimitation. We find that even otherwise, theDepartment in its application has not pointed outany mistake apparent on record, rather, theDepartment wants to re-agitate the issue ofallowability of deduction of the amount paid to thegovernment has Infrastructure Development Cess,which is a debatable issue on which a finding hadalready been arrived at by the Tribunal andfurtherthe Department had also filed the appeal before theHon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and theHigh Court has also dismissed the appeal of theDepartment vide its order dated 21.2.2017, In view of this, we do not find any merit inthe Misc. Application and the same 1s accordinglydismissed ’ [5]In our considered opinion, the application has beenrightly rejected. The question No.(iii) (supra) may have been raisedin the ground of appeal as urged by learned counsel for the Revenuebut it was not argued and that is why this Court has dismissed theappeal. [6]If as is now being argued, the Tribunal had notaddressed the question while deciding the appeal, this argumentshould have been taken before this Court while arguing ITA No.26 of In view of this, we do not find any merit inthe Misc. Application and the same 1s accordinglydismissed ’ [5]In our considered opinion, the application has beenrightly rejected. The question No.(iii) (supra) may have been raisedin the ground of appeal as urged by learned counsel for the Revenuebut it was not argued and that is why this Court has dismissed theappeal. [6]If as is now being argued, the Tribunal had notaddressed the question while deciding the appeal, this argumentshould have been taken before this Court while arguing ITA No.26 of ITA No.8522 of 2018 [4] 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 interferewith the order of the Tribunal. [8]The appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE January 27, 2020 pankaj bawejaI. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/Noa2. Whether reportablYes/No