Binding precedent controls deduction claims, while a new alternative relief cannot be raised through cross objections.
Deduction under section 10B was disallowed because the issue was already covered against the assessee by binding jurisdictional High Court precedent, and the Tribunal applied that ruling to sustain the Revenue's position. The assessee's cross objections seeking an alternative deduction under section 10A were held not maintainable because they raised a new claim not arising from the order under challenge and not decided against the assessee by the first appellate authority. The delay in filing the cross objections was nonetheless condoned on sufficient cause being shown, but the substantive alternative claim remained rejected.
Issues: (i) whether deduction under section 10B was allowable to the assessee for the assessment years in question; (ii) whether the assessee's cross objections seeking, in the alternative, deduction under section 10A were maintainable; and (iii) whether the delay in filing the cross objections should be condoned.
Issue (i): whether deduction under section 10B was allowable to the assessee for the assessment years in question.
Analysis: The assessment authorities had disallowed the claim under section 10B. The Tribunal noted that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which had reversed the earlier Tribunal view. The Tribunal therefore applied the High Court ruling and upheld the disallowance.
Conclusion: Deduction under section 10B was held not allowable, in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): whether the assessee's cross objections seeking, in the alternative, deduction under section 10A were maintainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the cross objections sought to raise an entirely new alternative claim that did not arise from the order under challenge. Relying on its coordinate bench decision, it held that such a claim could not be entertained through cross objections where the issue was not decided against the cross objector by the first appellate authority.
Conclusion: The cross objections on the section 10A claim were held not maintainable, in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): whether the delay in filing the cross objections should be condoned.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the explanation offered for the delay and held that sufficient cause was shown for the late filing.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals succeeded and the assessee's cross objections were rejected, with the section 10B disallowance sustained and the alternative section 10A claim not entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: A deduction claim cannot be sustained contrary to binding jurisdictional High Court precedent, and a new alternative claim not arising from the appellate order cannot be raised through cross objections.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
