TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n following background: The respondent-assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in various businesses including manufacturing pharmaceuticals. For the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessee had filed the returns of income computing income in terms of section 115JB of the Act. After carrying out scrutiny assessments in both cases, the Assessing Officer had issued notices for reopening of the assessments and ultimately, framed reassessment by making various additions. These assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised two fold contentions. One was that in both cases, the notices for reopening of the assessments were bad in law. The second limb of the assessee's contention was regarding the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer during such reassessment process. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessee by accepting the assessee's grounds against the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, on the question of validity of reopening of the assessments, the Commissioner (Appeals) held against the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), or a Commissioner (Appeals) as the case may be, passed under section 154 or 250 of the Act, could direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. Sub-section (3) of section 253 lays down the period of limitation for filing such appeals. Subsection (4) of section 253 pertains to cross-objections by the person against whom such appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and 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) 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 (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).]" 7. Under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late Tribunal by an assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Commissioner. Under sub-section (2) of section 253, only if the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner objects to any order passed by the Appellate Commissioner, he would direct the Assessing Officer to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Essentially therefore, an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Appellate Commissioner would lie against an order which is adverse to the appellant. May be, on one out of two grounds if the appeal of the assessee is allowed by the Appellate Commissioner in its entirety, he cannot be stated to be a person aggrieved by such order. His appeal under sub-section (1) of section 253 would not be maintainable. The assessee cannot file a standalone appeal challenging a finding of the Appellate Commissioner which may be against the assessee as long as the appellate order of the Commissioner is entirely in favour of the assessee and no part of the appeal of the assessee's claim is rejected. Under subsection (4) of section 253, it is open for a person either an Assessing Officer or, the assessee, upon receipt of a notice of the appeal filed before the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt observed as under: "32. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised a short preliminary objection that the learned Judges of the High Court having categorically found that there was an antecedent debt which was discharged by the suit-mortgage loan only to the extent of Rs. 59,000/- and odd and there being no appeal by the Bank against the finding that the balance of the Rs. 80,000/- had not gone in discharge of an antecedent debt, the respondent was precluded from putting forward a contention that the entire sum of Rs. 80,000/- covered by Exs. A and B went for the discharge of antecedent debts. We do not see any substance in this objection, because the respondent is entitled to canvass the correctness of findings against it in order to support the decree that has been passed against the appellant." 13. Likewise, in case of S.Nazeer Ahmed vs. State Bank of Mysore and ors reported in 2007 AIR SCW 766 it was held and observed as under: "7. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error in holding that the appellant not having filed a memorandum of cross-objections in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code, could not challenge the finding of the trial court that the suit was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; sub-section (3) prescribes the period of limitation within which an appeal could be preferred. Section 253(4) of the Act lays down that either the assessing officer or the assessee, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has been preferred under subsection (1) or subsection (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order or any part thereof, within 30 days of the notice, file a memorandum of cross objections verified in the prescribed manner and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (3). Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that a party has been granted an option or a discretion to file cross objection. 19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible to infer that the said party has accepted the order or the part thereof which was against the respondent. The Tribunal has, in the present case, unfortunately drawn such a....