9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in ITA No.2940/PUN/2016 and the Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.2019 dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. Therefore, the present appeal against the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 is not maintainable, hence dismissed as such. 3. However, before we part with the present order, we will be failing in our duty, we do not bring on record the conduct of the assessee in filing the present appeal. The brief background of the case is as under :- The assessment in the case of Shri Kishor Shankar Garve (the assessee) was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4, Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 06.12.2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') accepting the returned income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tet curiae quod sit pro un aet eademn cause' meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of 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. 7. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law in as much as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authorities; and the other principle is that 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, vide : Daryao v. State of U.P. [1962] 1 SCR 575." 9.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation [2006] 4 SCC 683 explained in clear terms that principle behind the doctrine of Res Judicata is to prevent an abuse of the process of Court. 9.2 In explaining the said principle the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Manufacturers Organisation (supra) relied on the following formulation of Lord Justice Somervell in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [1947] 2 All ER 255 (CA) :- "I think that on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata." 12. In view of such authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble 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 the appellant. 13. 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] 3 SCC 573. In paragraph 44 of the report, this principle has been very lucidly discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
