Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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