Does failing to file a cross-objection make the findings decided against you final?
The Tribunal had treated findings against the assessee as final because no cross-objection had been filed, even though the assessee had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Gujarat High Court held that this reasoning would render Rule 27 redundant and nugatory, and set it aside.
Decided by the High Court on 2006, reported as (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Gujarat). It bears on section 251, section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Penalty matters.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) although certain findings had gone against it. It did not file cross-objections when the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that those adverse findings had become final and remained unchallenged, and declined to consider them. The assessee took the matter to the High Court.
The Tribunal erred in holding that the findings had become final and unchallenged merely because no cross-objections had been filed by a party who had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). If that inference were accepted as correct, it would render Rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules redundant and nugatory.
Rule 27 exists precisely for the party who won below and therefore had no occasion to appeal. If non-filing of a cross-objection were treated as acquiescence in every adverse finding, no respondent could ever use the rule, and the rule would have no field of operation. A construction that empties a rule of content must be rejected. The successful party's silence is explained by success, not by acceptance of the reasoning.
If the inference drawn by the Tribunal is accepted as a correct proposition, it would render Rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules redundant and nugatory.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Tribunal had treated findings against the assessee as final because no cross-objection had been filed, even though the assessee had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Gujarat High Court held that this reasoning would render Rule 27 redundant and nugatory, and set it aside. This was decided by the High Court and bears on section 251, section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Gujarat). If it applies to you, the first step is this: When the Revenue argues that you accepted an adverse finding by not cross-appealing, cite Dahod Sahakari - success below explains the silence.
The assessee had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) although certain findings had gone against it. It did not file cross-objections when the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that those adverse findings had become final and remained unchallenged, and declined to consider them. The assessee took the matter to the High Court. The matter was decided on 2006 by the High Court. On those facts the High Court held as follows. The Tribunal erred in holding that the findings had become final and unchallenged merely because no cross-objections had been filed by a party who had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). If that inference were accepted as correct, it would render Rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules redundant and nugatory.
Rule 27 exists precisely for the party who won below and therefore had no occasion to appeal. If non-filing of a cross-objection were treated as acquiescence in every adverse finding, no respondent could ever use the rule, and the rule would have no field of operation. A construction that empties a rule of content must be rejected. The successful party's silence is explained by success, not by acceptance of the reasoning. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "If the inference drawn by the Tribunal is accepted as a correct proposition, it would render Rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules redundant and nugatory."
It was decided by the High Court on 2006 and is reported as (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Gujarat). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 251, section 253, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The Tribunal erred in holding that the findings had become final and unchallenged merely because no cross-objections had been filed by a party who had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). If that inference were accepted as correct, it would render Rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules redundant and nugatory. It arises in Appeals and Penalty matters, on section 251, section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. State on record that you succeeded before the CIT(A) and therefore had no cause to appeal; that fact is what triggers Rule 27. List the adverse findings you want to reopen defensively in your written submissions before the Tribunal, so the order records them. Where the finding could hurt you in another year or another proceeding, still consider a cross-objection - Rule 27 only protects the order in this appeal. Ask the CIT(A), while the first appeal is alive, to decide all grounds so that any Rule 27 defence later is grounded in actual findings.
Still good law. A separate check found the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sawhney v PCIT (2020:DHC:1935-DB) quoting Dahod Sahakari extensively and applying the same reasoning to hold that a respondent does not waive grounds by not filing cross-objections. No overruling, distinguishing at appellate level, or superseding amendment was found. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-19. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Tribunal erred in holding that the findings had become final and unchallenged merely because no cross-objections had been filed by a party who had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). If that inference were accepted as correct, it would render Rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules redundant and nugatory.
TaxSphere, “Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dahod-sahakari-kharid-vechan-sangh-v-cit-rule-27/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Can a respondent who did not appeal use Rule 27 to get the assessment annulled?
How far can a respondent go under Rule 27 - can it reopen matters outside the subject-matter of the appeal?
Is Rule 27 a concession the Tribunal may refuse, or a right the respondent can insist on?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
