Prosecution Cannot Invoke Section 106 Evidence Act To Shift Burden Of Proof Without Establishing Preliminary Facts: Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Burn Death Case, Raises Serious Doubts On Reliability Of Dying Declarations With 96% Burns Eliminates Need For Two Separate Appeals: Supreme Court Holds Composite Appeal Maintainable Against Common Judgment In Suit And Counterclaim 'Unjust Enrichment Must Be Prevented': Supreme Court Upholds Section 9 Interim Relief For Award Debtor, Directs Deposit Of Encahsed Bank Guarantees Direct Conflict Between Ocular Testimony And Medical-Forensic Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Rape General And Sweeping Accusations Against In-Laws Cannot Form Basis For Bigamy Prosecution Without Proof Of Overt Acts: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Bus Driver Cannot Outweigh Eyewitness Accounts And Police Records: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Elevating Procedural Formalism Over Substantial Justice': Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Death FIR Against BSF Jawan Citing Impeccable Alibi Employer Cannot Terminate Services For Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents Without Establishing Candidate's Prior Knowledge And Applying Mind To Offence: Supreme Court 'Motive Or Purpose Irrelevant': Supreme Court Reinstates SEBI Penalties, Holds Avoiding Loss Is No Defence Against Insider Trading Under 2015 Regulations Litigant Cannot Be Deprived Of Right Of Appeal Due To Unauthorized Statement By Counsel: Chhattisgarh High Court Remands Restoration Plea Supreme Court's One-Time Attendance Protection Extends To All Law Students Across Semesters: Bombay High Court Peaceful Protests Against Port Projects Cannot Be Labelled 'Undesirable': Kerala High Court Sets Aside FCRA Renewal Denial Father-In-Law Can Evict Daughter-In-Law From Self-Acquired Property Once Permission Is Withdrawn, Protection Under DV Act Not Available: Delhi High Court Section 16 Hindu Marriage Act Cannot Protect Children Born Of Unsolemnized Relationships Unless Factum Of Marriage Is Proved: Madras High Court Societal Attempts At Reconciliation Shouldn't Prejudice A Wife's Criminal Case: Jharkhand High Court Restores Section 498A Conviction Mere Subsistence Of EPC Contract Does Not Create Continuing Cause Of Action: Supreme Court Holds Section 9 IBC Application Time-Barred Supreme Court Holds Uncrystallized Damages Cannot Be Claimed As Operational Debt Under IBC

Cross-Objections Not Maintainable in Income Tax Appeals Before High Court: Delhi High Court Rejects Assessee’s Plea

11 March 2025 12:26 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Section 260A of the Income Tax Act Does Not Provide for Cross-Objections; Appeal Must Be Based on a Substantial Question of Law - In a significant judgment Delhi High Court ruled that cross-objections are not maintainable in appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision came in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., where the respondent-assessee had filed cross-objections against the revenue’s appeal.

The Court observed that "cross-objections are a substantive right and cannot be read into Section 260A unless explicitly provided by the statute. Since Section 260A only allows appeals on substantial questions of law, cross-objections have no place in such proceedings."

"Assessee Cannot Use Cross-Objections to Challenge Tribunal's Findings in a Revenue Appeal"
The case arose from a search and seizure operation conducted on September 17, 2010, on the Nagar Dairy Group, leading to tax assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested the invocation of Section 153C, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld its validity while granting partial relief on certain tax additions.

The revenue appealed against the ITAT’s decision to delete various tax additions, and in response, the assessee filed cross-objections, arguing that the Tribunal erred in upholding the invocation of Section 153C.

Rejecting the maintainability of the cross-objections, the Court ruled that "Section 260A provides a limited appellate remedy only on substantial questions of law. The respondent-assessee, if aggrieved by the Tribunal’s ruling on Section 153C, should have filed an independent appeal instead of attempting to challenge it through cross-objections."

"Cross-Objections in Income Tax Appeals Cannot Be Read Into Section 260A"

The assessee contended that Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which allows cross-objections in civil appeals, should be applied to appeals under Section 260A. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that "Order XLI Rule 22 applies to first appeals but does not extend to second appeals under Section 100 CPC, which is similar in structure to Section 260A of the Income Tax Act."

Referring to the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Jyoti Kumari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5147), the Court reiterated that: "Cross-objections are not maintainable in second appeals under Section 100 CPC, and since Section 260A follows a similar appellate framework, the same principle applies. The provision for cross-objections cannot be inferred merely because Section 260A states that CPC provisions shall apply ‘so far as may be’."

"Right to Appeal Must Be Expressly Provided by Law"

The High Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory creation and cannot be assumed unless expressly granted. The Court noted that: "An appeal is a substantive right, and cross-objections are in the nature of an appeal. Since Section 260A does not explicitly provide for cross-objections, the assessee cannot claim such a right."

The Court further explained that the absence of a cross-objection provision does not deprive the assessee of legal recourse. If an assessee is aggrieved by an ITAT ruling, they can file a separate appeal under Section 260A(2) within the prescribed 120-day period.


Dismissing the cross-objections, the Court ruled: "The cross-objections filed by the respondent-assessee are not maintainable under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The appeals filed by the Revenue shall proceed solely on the substantial question of law already framed."

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reaffirms that "cross-objections cannot be entertained in tax appeals before the High Court under Section 260A. Only substantial questions of law framed by the Court can be considered."

By rejecting the assessee’s attempt to challenge the ITAT’s findings through cross-objections, the judgment reinforces the limited scope of appellate review under Section 260A, ensuring that tax litigation remains confined to substantial legal issues.

Date of Decision: 03 March 2025
 

Latest Legal News