9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals were preferred in 2011, by the Revenue. The CIT(A) had made the order on 27.10.2010. In the circumstances, the belated cross-objections – by over four years, in the opinion of the Court, meant that the appellants were seeking to rake up stale issues for which they had accepted the finality as regards their tax liability. No question of law arises. - ITA 1000/2017 & CM No.41760/2017, ITA 1001/2017 & CM No.41761/2017, ITA 1014/2017 & CM No.41800/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advs. for appellant. Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department. O R D E R 1. The assessee/appellant urges that the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue s appeals were pending, it was entitled to prefer the cross-objection and urged the question of law, that it sought to. The assessee relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and some other judgments of the High Courts. The ITAT, however, declined to grant relief and rejected the application for condonation of delay. 4. It is urged on behalf of the assessee that once a party enters the Appellate Court, the issues are at large and the appellate forum is entitled to consider the correct position in law. So viewed, the cross-objection preferred was sufficient for the ITAT to have examined the claim of applicability of Section 14A to the exempt income derived in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion of the Court, is entirely irrelevant. In that case, the aggrieved assessee had already approached the appellate forum; it sought to urge the ground that became available to it during the pendency of the appeal. In the present case, however, the assessee did not approach the ITAT either in its own right as an appellant, if, it was at all aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), (who premised the liability on the basis that Section 14A applied) or even in the cross-objection. Likewise, the Court is of the opinion that the broad observations made in Turquoise Investment and Finance Ltd. (supra) by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, cannot in this case, obviate the essential fact that there was acceptance about the basic liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
