INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Sections 143(3), 154 & 80-IB(10)

Assessment under section 143(3) - Assessee filed petition before CIT(A) under section 154 consequent to which the claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) was allowed but order of CIT(A) when cjallenged by Department, Tribunal petition under section 154 in favour of the Revenue - -

AO passed assessment order under section 143(3). Assessee appealed the assessment, but CIT(A) dismissed the appeal which was confirmed by Tribunal as withdrawn. However, assessee filed petition under section 154 with CIT(A), who allowed the claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10). Department appealed against the decision of CIT(A) to the Tribunal, which came in favour of the Revenue. Held: In view of decision of Supreme Court in Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer AIR 1965 SC 1150, ' no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice. In view of this authoritative pronouncement there can be no doubt that the principles of Constructive res judicata, was applicable to Assessee. Thus, the attempt to re-argue the case which was finally decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction was a clear abuse of process of the Court, regardless of the principles of res judicata. Thus, the adventure made by assessee was clearly against the principles of res judicata and deserve to be deprecated in all possible terms.

Followed:Lord Justice Somervell in Greenhalgh v. Mallard (1947) 2 All ER 255 (CA) Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer AIR 1965 SC 1150 M.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Ors on 2-2-2011 : 2011 TaxPub(EX) 1294 (SC) K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi [1998] 3 SCC 573

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the Assessee

A.Y. : 2012-13

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT