TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ross Objection No.120/Bang/2018 in ITA No.1904/Bang/2018 for AY 2007-08 filed by the Assessee and to direct hearing of the Cross Objection and decide the same on merits. 2. The Assessee is an individual. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation carried out in the case of the Assessee u/s.132 of the Act, an order of assessment was passed in relation to AY 2007-08. One of the addition made in such assessment was addition of a sum of Rs. 63,27,500/- representing unexplained investment in jewellery. The Assessee challenged the aforesaid addition made in the order of assessment in an appeal filed before the first appellate authority, i.e., CIT(A). The first appellate authority confirmed addition to the extent of Rs. 56,71,005/-. The revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 56,71,005/- out of the total investment of Rs. 68,98,057/- as per the invoices for purchase of jewellary found during the search." 4. Since the aforesaid grounds are independent of the grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal, the CO ought to have been decided independently and not dismissed on the ground that the revenue's appeal has been dismissed. In other words, it is the plea of the Assessee that, CO which is independent of the grounds raised in the revenue has to be decided even though the revenue's appeal is dismissed or is withdrawn by the revenue. It is the plea of the Assessee that the order of the Tribunal dismissing the CO as infructuous owing to dismissal of the revenue'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out on facts by the landowners for further enhancement in the compensation and, if so, to what extent. (ii) decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ajay Kalia Vs. ACIT (CO 254/Del/2014 in ITA No.245/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 order dated 7.1.2016 wherein before the Delhi Bench, the revenue pleaded that the Assessee's cross objection should also be dismissed. The Tribunal held as follows: "5. Insofar as the Cross Objection of the assessee is concerned, the ld. DR at the very outset vigorously argued that the same should also be consequentially dismissed because the Revenue's appeal, pursuant to which the cross objection was filed, is likely to be dismissed as a result of low tax effect. His contention was that the CO has no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO or the assessee (hereinafter referred to as `the other side'), on receipt of notice of an appeal having been preferred by the appealing party against the order passed by the CIT(A), notwithstanding not having filed separate appeal, may file a Cross objection `against any part of the order of the ... Commissioner (Appeals).' It is amply clear from the language of sub-section (4) that the right to file cross objection has been given to the other side against any part of the order of the CIT(A), whether or not connected with the issues raised in the appeal by the appealing party. There can be one possibility when the cross objection is filed by the other side in support of the order passed by the CIT(A) and the other possibility can be of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....providing that: `The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him.' 9. The ld. DR's contention that the Cross objections filed by the assessees should be invariably dismissed in limine for the reason of the dismissal of the appeals of the Department because of low tax effect, in our considered opinion, does not stand to any logic in all circumstances. In a situation where the cross objection is in support of the impugned order, then, of course, such a cross objection has no independent existence and is liable to be dismissed as infructuous pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue. However, in a case where the cross objection filed u/s 253....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had filed return of income in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act declaring income of Rs. 24,06,380/-. In the assessment order, the AO computed by making addition of Rs. 94,105 as income from House Property not declared, Rs. 56,17,005 being unexplained investment in purchase of jewellery as per seized document and Rs. 25,52,000 being unexplained cash remittances to bank account u/s.69 of the Act. In respect of addition of Rs. 56,17,005, the CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO against which the Assessee has filed cross objection before the Tribunal. The addition of Rs. 25,52,000 was deleted by the CIT(A) against which the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal but that appeal was dismissed for low tax effect. Therefore ....