Bail Cannot Be a Luxury for the Rich and a Prison Sentence for the Poor: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies ₹1.10 Crore Bail Condition to ₹50,000 Land Acquisition Without Following Due Process is Invalid: Bombay High Court Strikes Down CIDCO's Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Specific Performance Cannot Be Denied When Contract Terms Are Clear and Limitation is Satisfied: Calcutta High Court Cross-Objections Not Maintainable in Income Tax Appeals Before High Court: Delhi High Court Rejects Assessee’s Plea Suppression of Serious Illness Amounts to Cruelty: Kerala High Court Affirms Divorce, Orders Husband to Return 91 Sovereigns of Gold Principle Of Lis Pendens Applies: PH High Court Rejecting Third-Party Claims To The Disputed Property Sold During Litigation. Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Challenge Interim Orders" – Rajasthan High Court Dismisses NTPC's Petition Failure to Follow Court’s Directions Due to External Factors Cannot Amount to Contempt – Kerala High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Temple Authorities Compelling a Wife to Abandon Her Dreams Amounts to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Divorce Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Not Justified When Rival FIRs Exist: Allahabad High Court Misuse of Official Position Cannot Be Shielded from Investigation: Supreme Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Former Collector Judicial Review Over Arrests Cannot Become a Shield for Economic Offenders: Supreme Court Lays Down Strict Limits on Court Intervention Taxation Law | Power to Arrest Must Not Become a Tool of Coercion:  Supreme Court Imposes Strict Safeguards Under Customs and GST Acts All Legal Heirs Must Be Heard in Property Disputes: Supreme Court on Impleadment of Legal Heirs Licensee Cannot Seek Injunction Once License Expires: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant in Cheque Bounce Case Has the Right to Appeal Against Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Overturns Sessions Court Ruling Custodial Interrogation Crucial for Justice in Healthcare Assault Cases: Kerala HC A Prior Divorce Decree Granting Custody Does Not Bar a Fresh Custody Claim – Madhya Pradesh High Court Orissa High Court Orders Immediate Admission of Student Denied Entry Due to Clerical Error P&H Court Affirms that Prolonged Absence Without Medical Justification Constitutes Gravest Misconduct Under Police Rules

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
 

Similar News