ASHIAN NEEDLES PVT LTD Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate accepts notices on behalf of respondents in all the four appeals. With consent of counsel, the matters were taken up for hearing. The following substantial question of law arises for determination: (i) Whether the Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that the Appellant's cross-objections under Section-253 (4) of the Income Tax Act was barred.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the Appeals are that: - The Income Tax authorities made re-assessments on 28.12.2007. The order was carried in Appeal. The Appellant had objected to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section-147 of the Act by the A.O. and also objected to the addition of certain amounts on merits. The Commissioner of Appeals by order dated 30.04.2009 upheld the order on jurisdiction even while accepting the assessee's appeal on merits. The Revenue appears to have carried the matter in appeal to the ITAT. The assessee did not file any appeal or cross-objections. There is some dispute whether the notice of appeals was in fact received by the appellant. However, the ITAT decided the appeals by its order dated 06.11.2009. Paragraph-4 of the said order noticed that no-one was present on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice of hearing. The Tribunal by that order directed remand to the A.O. on the question of consideration of additional evidence relied upon by the appellant. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee to this Court under Section-260A being ITA Nos.876, 877, 878 and 880/2010. This Court by its order dated 13.07.2010 disposed of the said four appeals. The Court expressly kept open and did not go into the question whether notice of appeals before the ITAT had in fact been served upon the assessee as is evident from the following observations: -

(3.) IT was urged that in the absence of any communication as to whether notice for appeal had been issued either in the first instance or after the remission, the Tribunal could not have held as it did in the impugned order, that the cross objection was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed the fact that the right to file cross-objections is available even beyond the period of time as is evident from the textual reading of Section-253 (5) of the Act.