2023 (11) TMI 652 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of Appeal against ITAT order - substantial question of law or fact - as alleged ITAT merely erred in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant in the cross objection specifically the ground no. 3 pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13, ITAT merely brushed aside all the grounds raised in the cross objection by holding that the grounds raised in the cross objection merely in support of the order of the First Appellate Authority and no substantial arguments were raised, thus order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse HELD THAT - The grounds of assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are identical and similar and the learned CIT (DR) could not show any distinct or dissimilar factual position of situation between the A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. Therefore, the conclusion recorded in the appeal filed by the Revenue with regard to ground Nos. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 would apply mutatis mutandis to ground No. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee has filed the cross objections only to support the first appellate order. However, no substantial arguments were advanced in support of cross objections by the assessee. The appeals of the revenue having been dismissed for the A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, the cross objection having become academic and infructuous were not adjudicated. In the result, the cross objections raising the grounds (1) to (3) filed by the assess were dismissed. This Court is of the view that neither any of the proposed substantial questions of law (1) to (3), nor any other substantial question of law arises for consideration herein. Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of law having been made out by the assessee, the present appeal preferred by the assessee against the order impugned passed by the ITAT, Indore does not deserve to be admitted.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the final order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore in Cross Objection No. 04/IND/2021 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

Issue 1:
The first substantial question of law raised in the appeal questions whether the ITAT erred in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant in the cross objection, specifically ground no. 3 related to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

The High Court found that the grounds of the assessee for the relevant assessment years were identical and similar, with no distinct or dissimilar factual situation. The conclusion reached in the appeal by the Revenue for the earlier assessment year applied mutatis mutandis to the subsequent years. As the assessee's cross objections were filed merely to support the first appellate order without substantial arguments, and since the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed for all relevant years, the cross objections were considered academic and were dismissed.

Issue 2:
The second substantial question of law raised in the appeal questioned whether the ITAT overlooked all the grounds raised in the cross objection and whether the ITAT's order was perverse, particularly regarding ground no. 3.

The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, found that none of the proposed substantial questions of law, including the ones raised in the appeal, warranted consideration. It was concluded that no substantial question of law was made out by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the ITAT's order.

Separate Judgement:
The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hon'ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma.