AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the assessee has not taken similar objections (Objection Nos. 1 to 3 ) before the Assessing Officer nor the Learned CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated upon these grounds. She pointed out further that besides this, assessee has also supported the first appellate order in Objection Nos. 4 to 6 of the cross objections for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07. The Learned DR reiterated that cross objections can be filed only against any part of the order of the appellate authority and the concerned party should be aggrieved in the present case. The Learned DR submitted further that objection numbers 5 & 6 raised in the cross-objections for the assessment year 2008-09 are also not permissible under the provisions of section 253(4) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pported by the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Purwanchal Parivahan Ghosthi [1998] 234 ITR 663 (Gau.); (ii) Dahed Sehkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 321/[2005] 149 Taxman 456 (Guj.). 3. The learned AR submitted that the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Asstt. CIT v. DHL Operations [2007] 13 SOT 581 (Mum.) vide its order dated 02.03.2007 has in categorical and in inequivocal terms has held that in a cross-objection before the ITAT, a legal issue can be raised which has not been raised before the authorities below at any stage. In this regard, he referred contents of Para No. 23 of the said order of the Special Bench. The Learned AR also referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas a cross-objection is filed in 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice of the appeal. In support, reliance was sought on the decision in the cases of Purvanchal Parivahan Ghosthi (supra) and Dahod Sehkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. (supra). It has been held therein that the ITAT has to decide the cross-objection as if it was an appeal. . Discussing the provisions of sec. 253(4) of the Act and Rule 22 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 Hon'ble High Court has held that cross-objections need not be confined to the points taken by the opposite party in the main appeal. The words against any part of the order of the DCIT" are wide enough to cover a situation where the Revenue has challenged the order of the DCIT(A) on the merits regarding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, the objection of the Learned CIT(DR) is that objection Nos. 1 to 6 of the cross-objections for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and Objection Nos. 5 & 6 for the assessment year 2008-09 were not raised before the Learned First Appellate Authority, hence, the same could not be raised before the ITAT. The contention of the learned AR remained that like in an appeal, the cross objector can raise a legal objection which goes to the route of the matter before the ITAT for the first time. In this regard, reliance was placed on several decisions including decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of DHL Operations (supra). Para No. 23 of the said decision is relevant which is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the ITAT are not confined to deal with the issue arising out of the orders of the authorities below as long as an issue has relevance to the correct determination of the taxes in respect of the years and particularly when relevant facts can be ascertained from the material already on record. The Special Bench while deciding the issue has taken strength of the ratios laid down in several decisions cited before it including Wilson Industries v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 318 of Hon'ble Madras High Court and of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra) has been pleased to hold that the view that the ITAT is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue raised before the ITAT in the cross objections regarding validity of the assessment order on the basis that (i) the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction while proceedings for framing assessment under sec. 153-C of the Act; (ii) the Assessing Officer had not signed the manuscript of the assessment order as required under sec. 282A of the Act; (iii) no incriminating documents in respect of the assessee was found from the possession of persons covered under sec. 153A of the Act, no new facts outside the record of the authorities below is required to be considered. In other words, the question of law raised above is arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings. When there is no need to consider the new ....