Shri Anil Tantia, SRIGANGANAGAR V. DCIT, BIKANER

CO 25/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8138 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH OHJA
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O. NO.25/JU/2012 (IN ITA NO. 167/JODH/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH ANIL TANTIA, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRI GANGANAGAR, BIKANER RAJASTHAN PAN NO. AAUPT3394A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH SURESH OHJA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.KHANDELWAL DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.12.2012 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A.M. THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISIN G OUT OF ITA NO.167/JODH/2012 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 3.1.2012 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), JAIPUR. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS I LLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 8,04,090/- , RS. 5,35,819/- AND RIGHTLY REDUCED FROM RS. 1,05,83,107/- TO RS. 35,21,128/- BUT CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND SHOULD HAVE DECLARE D THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AGAINST TH E LAW. 2 3. THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS AGAINST T HE JUDICIAL DECORUM AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE BECAUSE CI T(A) FAILS TO ALLOW THE BINDING NATURE JUDGMENT. 5 THAT THE COST MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO RELIEF HAS BEEN SOUGHT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE C ROSS OBJECTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS SINCE NO SPECIFIC RELIEF HAD BE EN SOUGHT FOR. 4. FOR THE AFORESAID VIEW, WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE JUD GMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SU NDARAM CLAYTON LTD. (1982) 136 ITR 315 WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS AT PAGE 322 HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER:- A CROSS-OBJECTION IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF AN APPE AL. A PERSON WHO HAS SUBSTANTIALLY SUCCEEDED IN A FORUM MAY NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO FILE AN APPEAL; BUT WHEN AN APPEAL IS ACTUALLY FILED, HE MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FILING OF THE A PPEAL BY THE OTHER SIDE SO AS TO FILE CROSS-OBJECTIONS TO GET RI D OF THE ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT IS ADVERSE TO HIM, AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE FILING OF THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IS CALCULATED FR OM THE DATE OF THE SERVICE OF THE APPELLATE GROUNDS. IN EFFECT, IN SUCH A CASE, A PARTY WHO DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL, GETS AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FILING WHAT IS IN EFFECT AN APPEAL. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED WHOLLY BEFORE THE AAC AND TH E TRIBUNAL, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR FILING AN APPEAL O R CROSS OBJECTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS IN LIMINE AS NOT BEING ENTERTAINABLE. TH E PROCEDURE OF FILING CROSS-OBJECTIONS IS NOT TO BE GONE THROUG H MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING FORWARD ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE CROSS-OBJECTOR. 3 5. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE MADRA S HIGH COURT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14.12.2 012 ) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR