Section 253

Section 253 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 253, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v Mst. Katiji Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Your appeal is late. How strictly will 'sufficient cause' be read?
  Liberally. A litigant gains nothing by filing late, refusal can destroy a meritorious cause at the threshold, and where substantial justice and technical considerations clash, substantial justice must win.
• CIT v Pawan Kumar Laddha Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Is payment of admitted tax under s.249(4) a condition that must be satisfied again when the appeal goes on to the Tribunal?
  The Supreme Court treated s.249(4)(a) as a mandatory condition for the admission of a first appeal by the CIT(A), but held that the condition belongs to s.249 alone and cannot be read into s.253(1)(b). Once satisfied at the first-appeal stage, the assessee does not have to pay the admitted tax over again to appeal to the Tribunal.
• Sanjay Sawhney v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I won before the CIT(A) but lost the jurisdiction point. Can I raise it in their appeal?
  Yes. Rule 27 lets a respondent who has not appealed support the order on a ground decided against him, provided the ground relates to the subject matter of the appeal and bears on the outcome. Not filing a cross-objection is not acceptance of the adverse findings, and the Rule prescribes no written application.
• B.R. Bamasi v CIT High CourtCuts both ways
  Can a respondent who did not appeal use Rule 27 to get the assessment annulled?
  The Bombay High Court held that a respondent invoking Rule 27 may deploy a ground decided against him only to sustain the order under appeal. He cannot use it to obtain further relief, and certainly not to have the assessment itself annulled. The ceiling on a Rule 27 plea is therefore the order he already holds.
• CIT v Edward Keventer (Successors) High CourtCuts both ways
  How far can a respondent go under Rule 27 - can it reopen matters outside the subject-matter of the appeal?
  The Delhi High Court set the outer boundary of Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules: a respondent may support the order under appeal on grounds decided against it, but may not use the rule as a device to travel outside the subject-matter of the appeal. At the same time the Court insisted the subject-matter be understood broadly, so that interconnected grounds are looked at together.
• CIT v Sundaram & Co High CourtCuts both ways
  Is Rule 27 a concession the Tribunal may refuse, or a right the respondent can insist on?
  The Madras High Court held that Rule 27 confers a right on the respondent and that the Tribunal has no discretion to deny him its benefit. It is an enabling provision, rooted in natural justice, which allows a party who won below to defend that result on every ground he had urged, whether or not it found favour.
• Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh v CIT High CourtCuts both ways
  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.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.