BHAURAM JODHRAJ AND CO Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1989-8-12
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 08,1989

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Egbert Singh, Account Member - (1.)THE cross objections have been filed by the assessee. In this connection, it may be clarified at the outset that against the order of the A.A.C. which is being impugned now, the revenue have already filed an appeal earlier. That appeal by the revenue was that the A.A.C. erred in allowing the assessee's claim for carry forward of loss though the return was not filed within the specified time. THE Appellate Tribunal heard both the sides and sustained the order of the A.A.C. in allowing the loss to be carried forward. That was the only point of appeal by the revenue.
(2.)The assessee did not file appeal on his own but after the appeal was filed by the revenue, the assessee as provided under Section 253(4), filed the present cross objections in which the assessee claimed full relief in respect of different expenses, like general charges, telephone etc. Hence, we take up the cross objections of the assessee for disposal. At the stage of hearing of the assessee's cross objections, the learned Departmental Representative raised preliminary objections that the cross objections of the assessee in the present circumstances should not be admitted in view of the fact that the subject matter of appeal preferred by the revenue, as stated earlier was only on the point of carrying forward of loss as allowed by the A.A.C., whereas in the cross objections, the assessee has claimed relief on expenses, which were partly sustained by the A.A.C. It is urged on behalf of the revenue, that the assessee if felt aggrieved with such part disallowance of expenses, the assessee could and should have filed its independent appeal in the normal course. It is pointed out that when the revenue had preferred an appeal on a particular point, that particular point only is the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the assessee may file cross objections in respect of that subject matter only. It is also submitted that if the cross objections of the assessee are admitted for consideration, then the revenue would be put to a irreparable loss which was not the intention of the law. It is also urged that if such view is taken, then the revenue would have to file cross objections on the cross objections filed by the assessee. It is, therefore, urged that interpretation of statute or any provision thereof should be in such a manner which would not bring about any absurdity or mischief which was never the intention of the statute. It is urged that interpretation particularly in the present context would have to be in harmony with the provisions of the other relevant provision.
It is also submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that there might be cases supporting the case of the assessee under the procedure adopted in Civil Court proceedings. It is contended that income-tax proceedings are completely different and in no way similar to the civil court proceedings and, therefore, any ruling given under the Civil Procedure Code, would not have any bearing or material on the issues involved. It is argued at length that if any party has filed an appeal and the other side has not filed his own appeal, then this other side has not filed his own appeal, then this other side has accepted the order or part of the order which might have been against the second party and, therefore, the first party has a vested right which has accrued to the first party in consequence of such part of the order of the appellate authority appealed against by the second party. It is pointed out that in such a situation as is in the present case, the assessee did not file his own appeal and thereby it accepted the part relief allowed by the A.A.C. and, therefore, that party cannot in the guise of cross objections come up in appeal claiming full relief at that stage. The learned Departmental Representative refers to a decision as reported in State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores [1979] 116 ITR 15 (SC) in order to support its contention. In fact, the learned Departmental Representative refers to various case laws in order to stress the different points and different aspects of the matter argued. It is submitted, therefore, that since the scope and the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as preferred by the revenue constituted the subject matter of appeal, then if the cross objections of the assessee related to other subject matters, then such cross objections cannot be entertained at all. It is urged at length that in the circumstances of the case, the cross objections preferred by the assessee in the present context may be dismissed.

(3.)ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the right of the respondent to file cross objections in terms of Section 253(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is stressed by him that if the view expounded by the learned Departmental Representative is to be accepted, then whole Sub-section (4) of Section 253 would have been amended drastically. It is urged that in view of the present provision mentioned above, the respondent assessee though may have filed his own appeal, may file his cross objections, within the specified time on being intimated that the first party has filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It is pointed out that in the cross objections, the assessee can raise objections or appeal against any part of the order of the A.A.C, not necessarily that part of the order appealed against by the revenue. It is submitted that there are various authorities for the proposition that a memorandum of objections may be filed against a decree as a whole or against a part of it which may not be the subject matter of the appeal. Details are given in the paper-book at page 1 onwards which we have gone through for our consideration along with the different case laws cited on behalf of the revenue. In other words, the assessee's learned counsel relied on the provision of Section 253(4) before us. It is submitted that this section and other clauses may not be misread as it was sought to be made out by the revenue.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.