TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- under Section 158B(b) read with Section 158BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was competent and justified in making addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,59,38,664/- or any part thereof which the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal did not make. iii) Whether the disallowance of the expenses of Rs. 1,59,38,664/- or any part thereof was perverse, without lawful basis, vitiated by irrelevant consideration and violative of the principles of natural justice." The facts and circumstances of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. Pursuant to search and seizure carried out in the office of the assessee, who is the sole proprietor of M/s. Vikram Carriers, a block assessment was made for a period of ten years. The Assessing Officer arrived at the following conclusion: "C. Excess claim of transportation charges by the assessee from oil companies:Pages 56 & 57 of seized documents VC / 4 is a letter dated 15.12.97 from the Constituted Attorney of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) to the Director (Marketing), IOCL, Mumbai for arbitration arising out of the assessee's excess claim of Rs. 1,19,20,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeded to examine the correctness of the alleged bogus creditors and the bogus expenditures and held as follows: "We find that even before us, the assessee was not able to produce any evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenses claimed by it. It seems that the extent of the bogus claim of expenses may be even more than the figure of Rs. 1,59,38,774/- held as bogus expenditure by the A.O. In our view, the A.O. was reasonable in taking only the total peak amount of the outstanding balances shown against these creditors at Rs. 1,59,38,774/- and treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee for the relevant previous years. Regarding the objection of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in block assessment, only the assessment of undisclosed income can be made on the basis of the same seized material and the issuance of notice u/s. 131 to the sundry creditors is not a seized material, we find that the argument of the Ld. Counsel is not tenable. We find that it was only due to search operations carried out against the assessee that the documents evidencing the claim of 3 oil companies regarding the excess claim of transportation charges were detected and that the accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or subsection (2-A) 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 Assessing Officer (in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel) or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, 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 subsection (3) or sub-section (3-A).]" The revenue did not choose to avail itself of the benefit of filing a cross objection when the assessee preferred an appeal challenging the order of the learned CIT(A). In the circumstances, it was rightly contended by Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, that it was not open to the learned Tribunal to confirm the addition of the sum of Rs. 1,59,38,774/- because no such additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of Rs. 1.59 crores approximately. When the Assessing Officer had not made the addition of Rs. 1,59,38,774/-, the assessee had no occasion to challenge the same. When the assessee carried the matter to the CIT (Appeal), the latter, without anything more, could have enhanced the addition. But the CIT (Appeal) did not do so. He merely confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the subject matter of challenge before the learned Tribunal was the addition of Rs. 2.02 crores. The learned Tribunal could either have upheld the same or could have set aside the same. The learned Tribunal chose to set aside that addition. The matter should therefore have come to an end in the absence of any cross objection by the revenue. Reference, in this regard, may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd.-vs-Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, reported in (1994) 13 ITR 272, wherein the following views were expressed: "Apart from statute, it is elementary that if a party appeals, he is the party who comes before the Appellate Tribunal to redress a grievance alleged by him. If the other side has any grievance, he has a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner, and shall, except in the case of an appeal referred to in sub-section (2), be accompanied by a fee of one hundred rupees. (4) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, and shall communicate any such orders to the assessee and to the Commissioner. (5) Where as the result of an appeal any change is made in the assessment of a firm or association of persons or a new assessment of a firm or association of persons is ordered to be made, the Appellate Tribunal may authorise the Income-tax Officer to amend accordingly any assessment made on any partner of the firm or any member of the association. (6) Save as provided in Section 66 orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final." We already have quoted sub-section (4) of section 253. Upon comparison of section 253 with section 33 of the 1922 Act, it would appear that the Act of 1922 did not contain any express provision enabling a respondent to the appeal to file a cross objection although latently it was there. The judicial principle pressed into service by ....