ITA No.8522 of 2018 [1] 102 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.8522 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Appellant Versus M/s Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 18.05.2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] in M.A. No.46/Chd/2017 in ITA No.710/ Chd/2013, rejecting application for modification and rectification. [2] brief facts are that assessee was claiming some deduction. matter had earlier gone to Tribunal which had remitted it back to Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT]. CIT allowed appeal of assessee. Thereafter, Revenue went up to Tribunal which dismissed its appeal and same was PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.29 13:51 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh ITA No.8522 of 2018 [2] carried to this court by way of Income Tax Appeal bearing ITA No.26 of 2017 wherein following questions were raised:- (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT was right in dismissing appeal of revenue by ignoring fact that said amount of ` 39,33,16,443/- was originally offered by assessee for taxation and later same was reduced from taxable income? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT was right in dismissing appeal of revenue despite fact that assessee had reflected said amount of ` 39,33,16,443/- as receivable from FCI in writ petition filed by it before Hon ble High Court? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble ITAT was right in dismissing appeal of revenue by ignoring fact that assessee had also claimed deduction of amount of cess actually paid to Punjab Govt., claiming it to be paid on behalf of FCI? [3] However, appeal was ultimately dismissed holding as follows: 5. findings recorded by Tribunal are pure findings of fact which have not been shown to be illegal or perverse by learned counsel for appellant-revenue. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises and appeal stands dismissed. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.29 13:51 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh ITA No.8522 of 2018 [3] [4] It was, thereafter, that application for rectification was made before Tribunal on ground that question No.(iii) (supra) had not been addressed and vide impugned order, Tribunal has dismissed same holding as follows:- In view of this, application filed by Department requires dismissal being barred by limitation. We find that even otherwise, Department in its application has not pointed out any mistake apparent on record, rather, Department wants to re-agitate issue of allowability of deduction of amount paid to government has Infrastructure Development Cess, which is debatable issue on which finding had already been arrived at by Tribunal and further Department had also filed appeal before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and High Court has also dismissed appeal of Department vide its order dated 21.2.2017. In view of this, we do not find any merit in Misc. Application and same is accordingly dismissed . [5] In our considered opinion, application has been rightly rejected. question No.(iii) (supra) may have been raised in ground of appeal as urged by learned counsel for Revenue but it was not argued and that is why this Court has dismissed appeal. [6] If as is now being argued, Tribunal had not addressed question while deciding appeal, this argument should have been taken before this Court while arguing ITA No.26 of PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.29 13:51 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh ITA No.8522 of 2018 [4] 2017 but once this court has dismissed appeal, it is not open to appellant to go back to Tribunal with that argument. [7] In circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with order of Tribunal. [8] appeal stands dismissed. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 27, 2020 pankaj baweja 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.29 13:51 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Chandigarh v. Punjab State Co-Operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd