The Delhi High Court held that the right to file cross-objections is a statutory remedy expressly conferred under S. 253(4) before the Tribunal, but Parliament has consciously not provided any corresponding right to a respondent in an appeal under S. 260A. The scope of a respondent’s right in S. 260A is confined to contending that no substantial question of law arises, and permitting cross-objections would impermissibly widen the appeal proceedings and amount to reading into the provision a substantive right not envisaged by the statute. Legislative silence in S. 260A, contrasted with express provision in S. 253(4), makes cross-objections before the High Court not maintainable. Referred CIT v. V. Damodaran (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 191 / (1980) 1 SCC 173
PCIT v Nagar Dairy (P) Ltd. (2025) 344 CTR 341 / 248 DTR 217 / 172 taxmann.com 111 /480 ITR 354 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Cross objections-Right of respondent-assessee to file cross-objections-The right to prefer cross-objections is statutorily recognised by S. 253(4), Parliament chose not to confer such a right upon a respondent in an appeal referable to the former-Legislative silence may sometimes resonate louder than express words and which may be either ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation-Cross objection not maintainable . [S.253 (4), 256(1), 260A(3), 260A(4), 260A(6), 260A(7), Civil Procedure Code, 1908,S.100, Order XLI R. 22]
Leave a Reply