Shri Manoj Kumar, SRIKARANPUR V. ACIT, SRIGANGANAGAR

CO 64/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7674 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI

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.64/JU/2009 (IN ITA NO. 442/JU/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, VS. THE ACIT, C/O GYANCHAND & BROTHERS, CIRCLE SRI GANGANAGAR, SRI GANGANAGAR SRI GANGANAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2012 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A.M. THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.442/JU/2009 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 5.5.2009 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), BIKANER.0 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE CIT RIGHT ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND ALLOWED R ELIEF OF RS. 21,60,000/- 2. THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF KUSUM LATA VS. ITO IN APPEAL NO. 378/JU/2001. 2 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSE E WAS HAVING THE INCOME FROM SALES OF SHARES OF THE I NDIAN COMPANIES. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY RELIEF, RATHER SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( APPEALS). THEREFORE, THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. [1982] 136 ITR 315 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCEEDED WHOLLY BEFORE THE AAC THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR CROS S- OBJECTION. A CROSS-OBJECTION, BEING IN THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL, ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WOULD MEAN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE AAC AND AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AAC, IT SHOULD HAVE DISM ISSED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN LIMINE AS NOT BEING ENTERTAINABLE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TECHNICALLY ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18.09.2 012 ) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : SEPTEMBER, 2012 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR