Revenue has filed appeal against order of CIT(A), Central-V, Mumbai dt. 28th Feb, 2003 relating to asst. yr. 1992-93 against order under s. 144 of IT Act. assessee has filed cross-objection against said appeal filed by Revenue on 19th June, 2006. preliminary objection raised by Revenue is against late filing of cross-objections by assessee. Revenue authorities filed appeal on 9th May, 2003 and it is claim of Revenue that assessee was in knowledge of pendency of said appeal from 2004 and as such assessee has filed present cross-objections on 19th June, 2006 after long delay. learned Authorised Representative for assessee has elaborately explained that there is no default in filing present cross-objections, but in alternative has also prayed for condonation of delay if any in presenting, said cross-objections before Tribunal. In order to adjudicate upon preliminary issue raised by parties, it is necessary to go into certain facts of case. assessee in present appeal is notified person under provisions of Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992. assessee expired on 31st Dec., 2001 and present cross-objection has been filed by Mrs. Jyoti H. Mehta, wife and legal heir of late Shri Harshad S. Mehta. Revenue filed present appeal on 9th May, 2003. On memo of appeal address of assessee was provided as under: Late Harshad S. Mehta, 1205/06, Makher Chamber V, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. said appeal was found to be in order by Registry vide order sheet entry dt. 16th July, 2004. Registry issued notice of hearing on 4th July, 2006 fixing date of hearing on 11th Aug., 2006, for which notice was sent to assessee on abovesaid address. assessee has filed letter dt. 7th June, 2006 before Asstt. Registrar wherein it claims to have received information that Department had filed appeal for which copy of Form No. 36 and grounds of appeal were not received by assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed its cross- objection on 19th June, 2006, assessee on 19th June, 2006 also filed letter claiming to have received Form No. 36 filed by Department along with grounds of appeal on 13th June, 2006. appeal along with cross- objections were fixed for hearing on 11th Aug., 2006, on which date matter was adjourned to 28th Aug., 2006. Thereafter, matter was taker. up on 11th Sept., 2006. assessee was asked to file affidavit as prima facie, it appeared that cross-objections were filed late. matter was adjourned to 13th Dec., 2006. assessee filed affidavit dt. 13th Oct., 2006, copy of which is placed at pages 7 and 8 of paper book filed on 16th July, 2007. In said affidavit wife of assessee has affirmed that she received certified copy of Form No. 36 upon payment of requisite charges on 13th June, 2006 and cross-objections were filed on 19th June, 2006. Thereafter affidavit was filed on 14th Nov., 2006 by Mr. Pitamber Das, DCIT, Central Circle-2, Mumbai. In said affidavit, it was stated by DCIT that during course of proceedings before Hon ble Special Court in State Bank of lndia vs. Custodian (MA No. 210 of 2003), IT Department, affidavit dt. 30th Dec., 2004 were filed and on page 2 of said affidavit table was given containing, inter alia, pendency of appeal in Harshad S. Mehta group of cases. It was further affirmed that in said table, case of late Shri Harshad S. Mehta for asst. yr. 1992-93 was clearly shown. Further, reliance was placed on affidavit dt. 10th Aug., 2005, Exhibit-I, which contains list of material provided for inspection to State Bank of India by IT Department and Serial No. 5 of Exhibit reads Second Appeal to Tribunal by CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1992-93. DCIT further affirms that in various proceedings before Hon ble Special Court, Hon ble Tribunal and Custodian, it has been discussed time and again that "demand in case of Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta asst. yr. 1992-93 is confirmed in first appeal and Departmental appeal is pending". Thereafter, DCIT affirms that Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta was fully aware regarding pendency of Departmental appeal in case of Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta for pendency of Departmental appeal in case of Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta for asst. yr. 1992-93 at least from 2004, if not earlier. copy of said affidavit of Mr. Pitamber Das is enclosed at pp. 9 to 12 of paper book filed on 16th July, 2007 along with affidavit filed before Special Court and affidavit filed by Asstt. GM of State Bank of India. assessee also moved petition for condonation of delay in presenting cross-objections before Tribunal on 6th Dec., 2006 along with affidavit and copy of petition along with affidavit is filed at pp. 25-30 of paper book filed on 16th June, 2007. learned Authorised Representative for assessee pointed out that in present appeal by Department old address of assessee is mentioned. said property was sold by Custodian of Special Court on 14- 5-2004 and from then assessee is not in possession of said property. learned Authorised Representative for assessee also pointed out that notices in present appeal are also being sent to old address of assessee which is mentioned in Memo of Appeal filed by Department, though wife of assessee is operating from another address, which is mentioned in cross-objections filed. claim of Learned Authorised Representative for assessee is that in view of said circumstances Memo of Appeal or any notice were not received by assessee and only during course of hearing in other appeals it came to his knowledge that Department has filed appeal against order of CIT(A) relating to asst. yr. 1992-93. Thereafter, on 13th June, 2006, wife of assessee moved application and on deposit of requisite fee for inspection and supply of copies, Memo of Appeal along with ground of appeal was issued. On receipt of said Memo of Appeal, assessee filed present cross-objections. Learned Authorised Representative for assessee further pointed out that there is no merit in affidavit filed by DCIT wherein it refers to list of cases pending and though column where any appeal has been filed, answer is yes . But, in next column where appeal is pending or disposed off, answer is "pending at Tribunal, assessment order has been confirmed by CIT(A)". learned Authorised Representative pointed out that same reflects that appeal has been filed by assessee, as order has been confirmed by CIT(A), whereas in present case, Department is in appeal. With regard to reference of second affidavit filed, it was clarified by Learned Authorised Representative for assessee that said affidavit was between Department and State Bank of India and assessee has no connection with same. learned Authorised Representative drew our attention to provisions of s. 253(4) of IT Act and pointed out that limitation for filing cross- appeals starts on receipt of notice, that appeal against order of CIT (A) has been preferred by other party. Even if wife of assessee was aware regarding pendency of Department appeal, but awareness does not in any manner prescribes limitation period in matter. first notice in hearing was issued on 4th July, 2006 fixing matter on 11th Aug., 2006. We have heard rival submissions and perused records. provisions of s. 253(4) provide that assessee or Revenue has liberty of filing cross-objections against appeal filed by other, only on receipt of notice that such appeal has been filed and limitation period is within 30 days of receipt of notice . Thus limitation period in present case for filing cross-objection would arise only once notice has been received by legal-heir of assessee that appeal has been preferred against order of CIT(A). present appeal was preferred by Department on 9th May, 2003, in which old address of assessee was mentioned in memo of appeal. said property was sold by IT Authorities on 14th May, 2004 and on perusal of records of Tribunal it transpires that till date Revenue authorities have failed to furnish change in address of assessee up-to-date. We have seen appeal records and it appears that memo of appeal was not received by assessee prior to 13th June, 2006, affidavit to this effect has been filed by legal heir of assessee. Though, there is noting in Order Sheet that Trip. Issued on 10th July, 2004, but service of memo of appeal on assessee is not available on record. Various notices have been issued to assessee on address mentioned in memo of appeal and same have been returned by postal authorities with remark left . said envelopes along with notices are available on record. Revenue further claims that it had forwarded copies of affidavit filed before Special Court claims that it had forwarded copies of affidavit filed before Special Court in State Bank of India s case (supra), which contained information regarding pendency of appeal in Harshad Mehta group of cases. From perusal of affidavit and Annexure thereto it transpires that no clear information in respect of pendency of Departmental appeal is available from said affidavits. In any case, even if such information was available, same does not become notice in terms of provisions of s. 253(4) of IT Act. In alternative, assessee has also sought permission for condomnation of delay in preferring present cross-objections and perusal of said petition at pages 25 to 28 of paper book reveals that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing present cross-objection. In group cases, where appeals have been filed after delay ranging between 83 to 827 days, application for condonation of delays have been considered by Tribunal and said appeals have been admitted for disposal on merits and decided thereafter. Copies of orders in case of group cases have been furnished at pages 35 to 63 of paper book. Keeping in view circumstances and various proceedings pending before different forums including Tribunal, Special Court, Custodian etc., we find merit in application of wife of assessee. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of case, we deem it fit to admit cross-objections filed by assessee and post same for hearing along with Departmental appeal on 18th July, 2007. Both, Departmental Appeal in ITA No. 3664/Mum./2004 and cross-objection of assessee in ITA No. 211/Mum./2006 shall be fixed for hearing on 18th July, 2007. In result, preliminary objection to filing of cross-objection is dealt with as indicated above and present cross-objection are to be taken on record as filed in-time and both Departmental appeal in ITA No. 3664/Mum./2004 and cross-objection of assessee in ITA No. 211/ Mum./2006 are to be listed for hearing on 18th July, 2007. *** DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HARSHAD S. MEHTA