M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 271/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6607 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS GEETMALA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL K MEHTA
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 271 & 352/DEL/2010 ( IN ITA NOS. 3386 & 4275/DEL/201 0 ) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2006-07 M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAL LTD., VS. DEPUTY CIT, SANCHAR BHAWAN, JANPATH, CIRCLE 2(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCB5576G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ANIL K. MEHTA, CA RESPONDENT BY: MRS. GEETMALA MO HANTY, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 24.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.11.2011 ORDER PER BENCH: THE PRESENT TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE PRESENTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.E. ITA NOS. 33 86 & 4275/DEL/2010 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 30. 4.2010. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 2 53 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE FILING OF CROSS-OBJECTION BY THE RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL. THIS SUB-SECTION READS AS UNDER: 4) THE 5 [ASSESSING] OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MA Y BE, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE 6 [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] 2 7 [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ] HAS BEEN PREFERRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) BY THE OTHER PAR TY, MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED AGAINST SUCH ORDER OR ANY PAR T THEREOF; WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, FILE A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS, VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, AGAINST ANY PART OF THE ORDER 8 OF THE 9 [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] 10 [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ], AND SUCH MEMORANDUM SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AS IF IT WERE AN APPEAL PRESENTED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB-S ECTION (3). 3. A PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION SUGGESTS THAT CROSS-OB JECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WOULD BE FILED AGAINST ANY PART OF THE O RDER IMPUGNED IN THE APPEAL. WE CONFRONTED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE TO POINT OUT FROM THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS AS TO AGA INST WHICH PART OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER, SUCH GROUNDS HAVE BEE N TAKEN. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE POSITION OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE GROUNDS ARE TAKEN IN SUPPORT OF THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER. FOR SUCH AN ACTION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL FILE THE CROSS-OBJECTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLEADED ANY G RIEVANCE IN THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS). THEREFORE, THE PRESENT CROSS-OBJECTIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE, THEY ARE REJECTED ACCORDINGLY. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/-( A.N. PAHUJA ) SD/- ( R AJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24/11/2011 MOHAN LAL 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR