9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1429 - AT - Wealth-taxMistakes apparent from record - Rectification of mistakes - Tribunal had omitted to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal that there is no urban land belonging to the appellant on the valuation date since the said land stood transferred on 5/12/2000 - HELD THAT - Referring to case of DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER 1990 (5) TMI 223 - SUPREME COURT there can be no doubt that the principles of Constructive Res Judicata as explained in explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC are also applicable to writ petitions. Petitioners had taken a chance of re-arguing the appeal already decided. Thus the attempt to re-argue the case which has been finally decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction is a clear abuse of process of the Court regardless of the principles of Res Judicata as has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Ors. 1998 (2) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The attempt by the petitioners to re-agitate the same issues which were considered by this Tribunal and were rejected expressly in the impugned order is a clear instance of an abuse of process of this Court apart from the fact that such issues are barred by principles of Res Judicata or Constructive Res Judicata and principles analogous thereto. Therefore it cannot be said that there are any mistakes apparent from record which are capable of being rectified exercising the power vested under section 254(2) of the Act. Misc. Petitions are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order. 2. Non-consideration of the jurisdictional High Court's decision. 3. Interpretation of the term "belonging to" under section 4 of the Wealth-tax Act. 4. Application of the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. 5. Abuse of the process of the court by re-litigating the same issues. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Mistake Apparent from the Record: The petitioners claimed that the Tribunal omitted to adjudicate an additional ground of appeal regarding the non-existence of urban land on the valuation date due to a transfer under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA). They argued that this constituted a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal found that the additional ground had indeed been adjudicated in paragraph 9 of its order, where it concluded that the land ownership had not been transferred to the developer through the JDA. 2. Non-Consideration of Jurisdictional High Court's Decision: The petitioners contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Dayalu, which was cited during arguments. The Tribunal, however, noted that there was no evidence that this decision was specifically relied upon during the original hearing. Moreover, even if considered, the Tribunal found that the decision had no bearing on the issue at hand, as it pertained to the definition of "transfer" under the Income-tax Act, whereas the current case involved the term "belonging to" under the Wealth-tax Act. 3. Interpretation of the Term "Belonging to": The Tribunal emphasized that the term "belonging to" under section 4 of the Wealth-tax Act had been interpreted in previous judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal held that since the title of the property had not been transferred to the developer through the JDA, the land continued to belong to the assessee and was liable to wealth tax. 4. Application of the Principles of Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata: The Tribunal highlighted that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata were applicable, preventing the re-litigation of issues that had already been decided. The Tribunal cited several Supreme Court decisions to support this principle, emphasizing that it is in the interest of public policy to ensure finality in litigation and prevent abuse of the court process. 5. Abuse of the Process of the Court: The Tribunal condemned the petitioners' attempt to re-argue the case under the guise of seeking rectification, considering it a clear abuse of the court process. The Tribunal noted that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and had wasted the Tribunal's valuable time. The Tribunal reiterated that section 254(2) of the Act is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not allow for a review or re-hearing of the matter. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous petitions, finding no mistakes apparent from the record that warranted rectification. The Tribunal also deplored the petitioners' conduct, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and the principles of res judicata in ensuring the finality of decisions. The order was pronounced in the open court on 11th August 2016.
|
