9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 437 - HC - Income TaxRejection of the alternative contentions of assessee on the ground of limitation - assessee had raised an alternative contention of exemption u/s 11 before the CIT (A) - CIT (A) decided in favor of assessee and did not examine alternative contention on merits Held that - When the Revenue had carried the CIT (A) s order before the Tribunal, it was open for the assessee to support the order on all grounds including those which may not have been accepted or examined by the CIT (A). For this purpose, cross-objection was not necessary. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not entertaining such cross-objection on the ground of delay, would not be fatal to the assessee s contention. It is clarified that if the Revenue s appeal before the Court is entertained further, it would be open for the assessee to support the orders in its favor on all grounds.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Tribunal's order 2. Claim of deduction under Section 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 3. Alternative contentions raised by the assessee 4. Dismissal of cross-objection by the Tribunal 5. Significance of alternative contention in appeal before the High Court Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the portion of the Tribunal's order dated 19.3.2010 that was adverse to the appellant. The appellant framed a question challenging the rejection of the claim of deduction under Section 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, which led to the appellant raising concerns regarding the significance of the alternative contention in the appeal before the High Court. 2. The assessee initially claimed benefits under Section 10(23B) before the Assessing Officer. Upon an unfavorable decision by the Assessing Officer, the issue was taken to the CIT (A). The assessee reiterated the claim and raised alternative contentions related to the benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal for benefits under Section 10(23) and did not consider the alternative ground raised by the assessee. 3. The Tribunal, in its order dated 19.3.2010, dismissed the Revenue's appeal and refused to entertain the assessee's cross-objection due to a belated filing without a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Tribunal's decision on the cross-objection being dismissed was based on procedural grounds. 4. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision on merits favored the assessee, but the alternative contention became crucial as the Revenue challenged the decision further in appeal before the High Court. The appellant's concern was that the alternative contention might get barred due to the Tribunal's dismissal of the cross-objection. 5. The High Court clarified that filing a cross-objection was not necessary as the alternative contention had already been raised before the CIT (A). Since the CIT (A) did not examine this alternative contention on merits due to granting benefits under Section 10(23), the assessee had the right to support all grounds, including those not accepted by the CIT (A), before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the cross-objection on procedural grounds was not fatal to the assessee's contention. The High Court disposed of the Tax Appeal with these observations, allowing the assessee to support the orders in its favor on all grounds in further proceedings.
|
