Slump sale as going concern excluded tax under section 50, while cross-objections in section 260A were not maintainable

Transfer of a business undertaking as a going concern was treated as a slump sale, and the concurrent factual findings were upheld; the mere retention of some assets by the assessee did not alter that character, so the consideration could not be brought to tax under section 50. Cross-objections in proceedings under section 260A were held not maintainable because such a right cannot be implied without express statutory provision, and they were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of part of the business was a slump sale of a going concern so that the consideration could not be brought to tax under section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the cross-objections filed in the appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of part of the business was a slump sale of a going concern so that the consideration could not be brought to tax under section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The two appellate authorities had concurrently found, on appreciation of the material, that the transfer was of a business undertaking as a going concern and that the transaction answered the description of a slump sale. The fact that some assets remained with the assessee did not displace the finding reached on the nature of the transfer, and the conclusion was supported by the decisions relied upon by the authorities below.

Conclusion: The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the cross-objections filed in the appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were maintainable.

Analysis: A cross-objection under the appellate framework cannot be implied in the absence of express statutory provision. Applying that principle, cross-objections were held not to lie in proceedings under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were held to be not maintainable and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on the merits of the slump sale issue, while the assessee's cross-objections were rejected as not maintainable, leaving the appellate court to dismiss the proceedings in their entirety.

---