9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 115 - AT - Income TaxRe-argue case - abuse of the process of the court - Appeal against order wherein tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn - appeal was filed before this Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn - appellant moved petition u/s 154 before the ld. CIT(A) against the impugned order, who allowed the petition u/s 154, consequent to which the claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) came to be allowed in favour of the assessee but order of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the petition u/s 154 was allowed in favour of the Revenue - HELD THAT - It is obvious that such a litigative adventure by the present appellant is clearly against the principles of Res Judicata as well as principles of Constructive Res Judicata and principles analogous thereto Res Judicata is common to all civilized system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should forever set the controversy at rest. any proceeding which has been initiated in breach of the principle of Res Judicata is prima-facie a proceeding which has been initiated in abuse of the process of Court. the principles of Constructive Res Judicata, as explained in explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC, are also applicable to the appellant. 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 v. K.N. Modi 1998 (2) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT Thus, the adventure made by the appellant in filing the present appeal, is nothing but abuse of process of Court, deserves to be deprecated in all possible terms.
Issues:
Appeal maintainability against impugned order dated 27.07.2016 Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27.07.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. However, it was noted that a previous appeal by the assessee on the same matter had been dismissed by the Tribunal on 30.01.2019. The current appeal against the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 was deemed not maintainable due to the previous dismissal. The Tribunal highlighted the litigative history of the case, emphasizing that the appellant had already pursued various avenues, including a petition under section 154 before the CIT(A), which was allowed, and a subsequent challenge by the Department before the Tribunal, resulting in a decision in favor of the Revenue on 05.07.2022. The present appeal was filed with a significant delay of 2038 days after the Tribunal's order in 2022. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions were against the principles of Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata, which aim to prevent abuse of the legal process by re-arguing matters already decided by competent authorities. The Tribunal delved into the principles of Res Judicata, emphasizing that they are of universal application and based on public policy considerations. The doctrine of Res Judicata ensures finality in litigation, preventing endless legal battles and potential oppression. The Tribunal cited legal precedents and judgments to support the importance of respecting final decisions made by courts of competent jurisdiction. The Tribunal highlighted that initiating proceedings in violation of Res Judicata principles is considered an abuse of the court's process. The Tribunal referred to various Supreme Court judgments that underscored the significance of preventing relitigation and upholding the integrity of legal decisions to maintain fairness and justice in the legal system. In alignment with authoritative pronouncements by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal reiterated that the principles of Constructive Res Judicata, as outlined in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that attempting to re-argue a case already conclusively decided by a competent court amounts to an abuse of the legal process, as established in legal precedents. The Tribunal cited specific cases and legal principles to demonstrate that relitigating issues already adjudicated is contrary to justice, public policy, and the interests of a fair legal system. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's filing of the current appeal was an abuse of the court's process and deserved strong disapproval, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
