2011 (11) TMI 711 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in filing Cross Objections challenging initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the IT Act.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT AHMEDABAD dealt with the issue of delay in filing Cross Objections challenging the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the IT Act. The Cross Objections were found to be time-barred by a significant number of days, as highlighted in the case. The assessee admitted the delay in filing the Cross Objections in an affidavit submitted by Shri Mahendra A. Patel.

The assessee in all the Cross Objections challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the IT Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the delay in filing the Cross Objections was due to a bona fide belief that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) could be supported without filing the Cross Objections, citing Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. However, the learned DR contended that the grounds raised in the Cross Objections had already been decided against the assessee by the learned CIT(A), and thus, there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The learned Counsel for the assessee requested to withdraw the Cross Objections with liberty to argue the validity of the assessment in the departmental appeal.

After considering the facts presented, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the Cross Objections. It was noted that Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules allows the Respondent (assessee) to support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against him, even if no appeal has been filed. Since the points raised in the Cross Objections had already been decided against the assessee by the learned CIT(A), the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Cross Objections. Consequently, the Cross Objections were dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee retaining the liberty to argue the same points during the disposal of the departmental appeals.

In conclusion, all the Cross Objections of the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules.