TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arise from the order of the learned CIT - A. 3. Assessee is aggrieved with that and stating that there is an apparent error in the order of the coordinate bench which is contrary to the provisions of Section 253 (4) of The Act and rule 22 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunals) Rules, 1963 and law laid down by the various High Court's including the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches of the tribunal. 4. The Miscellaneous Petition says that coordinate bench did not consider the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SILVER LINE 383 ITR 455 wherein it is held that the tribunal was right in permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground challenging validity of reassessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 147 for the first time in cross objection filed before the tribunal holding that the issue raised in cross objection was purely a legal issue which could be raised for the first time and adjudicated by the tribunal as per the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of National thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 229 ITR 383. Thus, miscellaneous appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tribunal against the order. If the appeal is filed by the assessee then revenue, is a respondent and if the appeal is filed by the revenue then assessee is a respondent, and the respondent in both the situation is granted arrived to file cross objection in the appeal filed by the appellant. According to the provisions of section 253 (4), the assessee on receipt of notice that appeal against the order of the commissioner Appeals has been preferred by the Commissioner, may file a memorandum of cross objections in the prescribed manner against any part of the order of the Commissioner (appeals). Undoubtedly, the grounds of cross objection cannot be limited to the grounds raised in the appeal of the revenue. However, the question that arises is that whether in the cross objection the assessee or revenue (AO) can raise an issue, which was not at all a matter of dispute before the assessing officer or before the 1st appellate authority. The provisions of section 253 (4) authorizes the other party to file cross objection against any part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, it is apparent that the issue must have been decided in the order of the 1st appellate authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9, but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953 - 54. However, in that particular case the issue was before the appellate assistant Commissioner where the assessee objected to the inclusion of the dividend income as income pertaining to the relevant previous year and also objected to the increasing the quantum of dividend received by adopting the market value of the specie in which it had been received. The appellate assistant Commissioner rejected both the contentions. Therefore, in that particular decision, there was an issue, which was already decided by the appellate assistant Commissioner, and therefore the assessee could agitate before the tribunal. Furthermore the decision cited before us does not deal with the right of the assessee under section 253 (4) of the act. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned authorised representative on that decision is improper for the issue before us. 24. The learned authorised representative has also relied upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of B R Bamasi (supra). On careful reading of that decision it says that that the new ground of the appeal would serve only as a weapon of defence against the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee in cross objection challenged the issue of registration of the firm. Therefore in that particular case both the issues were before the assessing officer emanating from the order of the AO. Hence the facts of that case are quite distinct from the facts before us. 26. The next decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative is of Assam Co. (India) Ltd.'s case (supra). The facts in that particular case is that in the return of income the applicant company claimed deduction under section 35B of the act in respect of warehouse charges paid abroad. In the assessment the learned assessing officer allowed the weighted deduction of warehouse charges under section 30 5B (1) (b) (iv) of the act read with rule 6AA of the income tax rules 1962. The Commissioner revised the order under section 263 and withdrew the said deduction. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order under section 263 of the income-tax act. The tribunal dismiss the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Commissioner. In the press assessment proceedings the assessee objected to the withdrawal of weighted deduction on several grounds. The learned AO rejected the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lver Line 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) has decided that even the additional grounds can be raised for the first time before the tribunal in a cross objection. He specifically referred to fact in that case wherein the assessee raised an additional ground that no notice u/s 143 (2) had been issued prior to finalize of the reassessment order by the assessing officer and therefore the assessment order is passed without jurisdiction. This issue was raised for the first time before the tribunal and there was no concern for the assessing officer in the absence of any return filed by the assessee pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 of the income tax act to issue any notice u/s 143 (2) of the act. As per para number 16 of the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court it was held that that when there being no fresh evidence or disputed facts shought to be brought on record, the issue being purely one of law, the ITAT was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. The Honourable High Court drew support from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 229 ITR 383 (SC) . In the impugned case before us, the ....