JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by N. Kumar J.-The Revenue has preferred these two appeals against common order passed by Tribunal affirming findings recorded by first appellate authority that sale was slump sale and, therefore, computation of capital gains should be on that basis. These two appeals are admitted for considering following substantial question of law: "Whether appellate authorities were correct in holding that consideration amount of Rs. 2.2 crores received by assessee from M/s. Praxair Carbondioxide Pvt. Ltd., was consideration received for slump sale of going concern for slump price and cannot be brought to tax under section 50 of Act as held by Assessing Officer especially when assessee continued to own some of company assets?" assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing, sales and distribution of pure carbondioxide (CO2) liquid and storage systems. assessee had transferred part of business as going concern to M/s. Praxair Carbondioxide Pvt. Ltd. and consideration received was not offered to tax. Notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on April 8, 2002, after recording reasons for reopening. In response to said notice, assessee furnished details as called for. Thereafter, assessing authority found that assessee has not sold all assets. Some buildings, machinery, office equipment, computers and vehicles have not been sold by assessee and some cylinders have also been retained by assessee even after transfer of CO2 business. Therefore, assessing authority was of view that entire assets forming part of business are not sold. nomenclature used in agreement with M/s. Praxair Carbondioxide Pvt. Ltd. does not make sale, slump sale. In case of slump sale, all assets have to be transferred, which is not case here in assessee's case. Therefore, authorities proceeded to levy tax. Aggrieved by said order, assessee preferred appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore. appellate authority, after referring to various judgments and also sale which took place in case of sister concern and orders passed in respect of said assessment years, held that facts in present case are identical. But in case of sister concern, M/s. CICB Chemicon Pvt. Ltd., Tribunal has issued direction to consider liability and capital gains, on basis of that, it is case of slump sale and assessing authority was directed to follow directions contained in various judgments, as considered by Tribunal. Therefore, following those judgments in this case also it was held that, it was case of slump sale. Aggrieved by said order, Revenue has preferred appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal, on re-appreciation of entire materials on record, held that instant case is covered by decision of Tribunal in case of CICB and Mahalsa, in which case also all assets and liabilities were not transferred. Still Tribunal in its order in case of Mahalsa Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., has held that sale is slump sale. Reliance was placed on decisions of apex court in cases of CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (Land Department) [1965] 57 ITR 299 (SC) and also decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 681 (Karn). Therefore, it affirmed findings of first appellate court. It is against said order of Tribunal, appeals are filed. From aforesaid facts, it is clear that two appellate courts on consideration of entire material on record have concurrently held that sale is slump sale and while coming to said conclusion, they have relied on orders passed by Tribunal in connection with sister concern of assessee. They have also followed judgment of apex court as well as this court. Under these circumstances, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, substantial questions of law framed in these cases are also answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. assessee has also preferred cross-objections to appeals. This court in case of Smt. Jyoti Kumari v. Asst. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 60 (Karn) has held that appeal being creature of statute, cross-objection in terms of rule 22 being barred with appeal, until and unless there is express provision on settling legal provisions one cannot hold that implication or right of cross-objection should be read into either provisions of Order 42 read with sections 100 and 108 of Code of Civil Procedure or under provisions of sub-section (7) of section 260A of Income-tax Act. Therefore, it is held that cross-objection is not maintainable under section 260A of Income-tax Act. Following said judgment these cross-objections are dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, we pass following order: Both appeals and cross-objections are dismissed. Consequently, all pending applications are dismissed. *** CICB-Chemicon P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax