Cross-objections after limited remand must be tested for entertainability and delay condonation before rejection.

Cross-objections under Section 253(4) of the Income-tax Act could not be rejected mechanically after a limited remand where the earlier High Court order had left open whether notice of the Tribunal proceedings had been served on the assessee. In that situation, the Tribunal was required to examine whether the cross-objections were entertainable under the statute and, if necessary, whether any delay could be condoned. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be considered on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's cross-objections under Section 253(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were barred and incapable of being entertained after the matter had been remitted by the High Court.

Analysis: The cross-objections were filed after the Tribunal's earlier order had been carried in appeal and after this Court had remitted the matter for a limited purpose. The prior order of this Court had expressly left open the question whether notice of the earlier Tribunal proceedings had in fact been served on the assessee. In that backdrop, the Tribunal could not reject the cross-objections on an assumption that the assessee had already had an opportunity to file them earlier. The Tribunal also retained power to examine whether the cross-objections could be entertained in the facts of the case, including whether any delay was liable to be condoned under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's rejection of the cross-objections could not be sustained; the cross-objections were required to be considered on merits, including the issue of delay and its condonation if necessary.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a partial and substantive reversal of the Tribunal's order, and the matter was sent back for consideration of the cross-objections in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prior proceedings have been remitted on a limited issue and the question of service of notice remains open, the Tribunal cannot mechanically bar cross-objections and must first determine their entertainability under the statute, including any question of delay.

---