Yoginder Kumar Sud v. President Income Tax Appellate Tribunal And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.9731 of 2013 Date of Decision:08.05.2013 Yoginder Kumar Sud Vs. .....Petitioner President Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:-Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) The petitioner has claimed a writ of mandamus for restrainingrespondents No.2 and 3, i.e., Judicial and Accountant Members of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar from discharging their functions anddirecting the President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to deciderepresention dated 18.3.2013 in the time bound manner. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and has beenappearing before the Income Tax Authorities as well as before variousBenches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of thepetitioner is that the petitioner is facing lot of harrassment at the hands ofrespondents No.2 and 3, who are Judicial and Accountant Member of theTribunal at Amritsar as the petitioner has not been able to meet theirexpectations and illegal demands. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal is delaying the matters ofthe petitioner or passing unreasoned orders or by totalling ignoring him. It C.W.P. No.9731 of 2013 is also pointed out that respondent No.2 was transferred out of Amritsar on arepresentation submitted by the petitioner but after one year respondentNo.2 has been again posted as a Judicial Member of Amritsar Tribunal.The petitioner claims that the Members are totally prejudice against thepetitioner on account of his having made a complaint against respondentNo.2 to the President. It appears that the present writ petition is to settle the scoreswhich the petitioner might have raised during the course of his conduct asrepresentative of the assessees. The petitioner has asserted that he is notable to meet the expectations and illegal demands raised by the Membersbut there is no details as to when and how the demands were raised. Notonly the writ petition is bereft of any material particulars but also thepetitioner has no right to claim mandamus for restraining an authorityconstituted under the Act from discharging the functions entrusted to it bythe Statute. The present writ petition is gross abuse of process of law and,therefore, it is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE May 08, 2013renu ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE