TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....904/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 had filed appeal against the said order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal 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independent of the grounds raised in the revenue has to be decided even though the revenue's appeal is dismissed or is withdrawn by the revenue.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's appeal suffers from a mistake apparent from the face of the record and should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 independent existence distinct from the Departmental appeal and hence the same cannot be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 filing CO against the issues decided against it in the impugned order. There can be still one more possibi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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(4) is on an issue independent of the appeal filed by the Revenue, then, such a cross objection cannot be dismissed simp....