TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has been cooperating with the Department since 2009. The assessee for the last six years has been craving for supply of the copy of note of satisfaction which is sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction under sec. 153C of the Act. He pointed that lastly vide letter, dated-08.08.2014 the assessee deposited the requisite fee with the request to supply copy of the note of satisfaction in writing but he could not succeed. All these events would prove bona fide and good reasons for raising the above legal plea which goes to the root of the matter. We do no find reason to doubt these explanation of tie assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the legal issues raised in the cross objections for the first time objections before the ITAT have been validly raised by the assessee, hence it cannot be said that the cross objections raising those issues for the first time would be amounting to non-maintainability of the cross objections under consideration - decided in favour of assessee - Cross Objection Nos. 138 to 142 (Delhi) of 2014 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2014 - S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND I.C. Sudhir, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Prakash Chand Yadav, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the only difference is that an appeal is to be filed in 60 days along with fee and a cross-objection is filed in 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. He submitted that cross-objection is also an appeal which is supported by the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Purwanchal Parivahan Ghosthi [1998] 234 ITR 663 (Gau.); (ii) Dahed Sehkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 321/[2005] 149 Taxman 456 (Guj.). 3. The learned AR submitted that the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Asstt. CIT v. DHL Operations [2007] 13 SOT 581 (Mum.) vide its order dated 02.03.2007 has in categorical and in inequivocal terms has held that in a cross-objection before the ITAT, a legal issue can be raised which has not been raised before the authorities below at any stage. In this regard, he referred contents of Para No. 23 of the said order of the Special Bench. The Learned AR also referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 wherein the word 'Cross Objection' has been used in the decision. 4. We find that the decision of the ITAT in the case of Neetee Clothing (P) Ltd. (supra) holding that an ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that an appeal can be preferred within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, whereas a cross-objection can be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of service of appeal by the opposite party. Hon'ble High Court observed further that the provisions under sub-section (4) of section 253 of the Act and Rule 22 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 stand on a better footing than the provisions made in order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with filing of cross-objection. Whereas there is no provision in Code of Civil Procedure to number and Cross-objection as an appeal such provision has been made by the rule making authority under the ITAT Rules, 1963. Thus, we fully concur with the plea of the learned AR that once the cross-objection is registered for hearing before the ITAT, it acquires the status of the appeal and similar treatment is expected from the ITAT as towards an appeal is treated for adjudication by it. Now, the question is as to whether a cross-objector can raise on issue before the ITAT which was not raised before the first appellate authority. In the present case, the objection of the Learned CIT(DR) is that objection Nos. 1 to 6 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant facts can be ascertained from the material already on record. The Special Bench while deciding the issue has taken strength of the ratios laid down in several decisions cited before it including Wilson Industries v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 318 of Hon'ble Madras High Court and of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra) has been pleased to hold that the view that the ITAT is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Learned CIT(Appeals) has too narrow a view to take of the powers of the ITAT. Undoubtedly, the ITAT has the discretion to allow of not to allow a new ground to be raised but where the ITAT is only required to consider the question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
