TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of ₹ 56,17,005, the CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO against which the Assessee has filed cross objection before the Tribunal. The addition of ₹ 25,52,000 was deleted by the CIT(A) against which the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal but that appeal was dismissed for low tax effect. Therefore the issue to be decided in the CO was an issue independent of the appeal filed by the Revenue. In such cases, the CO cannot be dismissed simply on the ground of dismissal of the appeal by the revenue involving low tax effect. The decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ajay Kalia [ 2016 (2) TMI 165 - ITAT DELHI] supports the plea of the Assessee. We therefore recall the orde in so far as it relates to dismissal of CO as infructuous and direct that the said CO will be heard and decided on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee - MP No. 10/Bang/2020 [in CO. 120/Bang/2018 [in ITA 1904/Bang/2018] - - - Dated:- 18-3-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Bipin C.K., JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , wife of the Respondent-assessee, the Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 56,71,005/- out of the total investment of ₹ 68,98,057/- as per the invoices for purchase of jewellary found during the search. 4. Since the aforesaid grounds are independent of the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal, the CO ought to have been decided independently and not dismissed on the ground that the revenue s appeal has been dismissed. In other words, it is the plea of the Assessee that, CO which is independent of the grounds raised in the revenue has to be decided even though the revenue s appeal is dismissed or is withdrawn by the revenue. It is the plea of the Assessee that the order of the Tribunal dismissing the CO as infructuous owing to dismissal of the revenue s appeal suffers from a mistake apparent from the face of the record and should be recalled and the CO should be directed to be heard and decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated the stand taken by the Assessee in the application and has further drawn our attention to two decisions viz., (i) Decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lac and has been dismissed supra, we need to concentrate on the prescription of section 253(4) which empowers the respondent to file cross objection, the relevant part of which reads as under:- `(4) The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of . the Commissioner (Appeals) has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof; within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order of . the Commissioner (Appeals), and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A). 7. A bare perusal of the above provision transpires that the AO or the assessee (hereinafter referred to as `the other side ), on receipt of notice of an appeal having been preferred by the appealing party against the order passed by the CIT(A), notwithstanding not having filed separate appeal, may fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to any logic in all circumstances. In a situation where the cross objection is in support of the impugned order, then, of course, such a cross objection has no independent existence and is liable to be dismissed as infructuous pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue. However, in a case where the cross objection filed u/s 253(4) is on an issue independent of the appeal filed by the Revenue, then, such a cross objection cannot be dismissed simply on the ground of dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue involving low tax effect. Acceptance of this contention of the ld. DR would amount to snatching a valuable right given by the statute to the assessee to file and pursue an appeal before the Tribunal irrespective of any tax effect. We, therefore, negate the contention of the ld. DR by holding that the instant CO challenging the impugned order, is maintainable. 7. It was pointed out that the issues raised in the cross objection is independent of the issue raised by the revenue in its appeal and therefore the same ought to have been heard and decided on merits and ought not to have been dismissed as infructuous. 8. The learned DR submitted that the CO has no legs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
