Case Law Details
Brief of the Case: ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. Raj Kumar Jalan that in view of the proposition laid down by the Honble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bhusan Jain and others in ITA No.648/09 and 669/2009 etc order dated 08.01.2015, we are of the view that the period of above three years cannot be considered as “immediate” or “immediately proximate” in point of time to the completion of the block assessment u/s 158BD. The assessment itself is bad in law. Thus application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules is allowed.
Facts of the Case: The AO initiated proceedings u/s 158BD after a long gap of 3 years from the date of completion of block assessment in the case of M/s Bemco Jewellers P. Ltd. The ld counsel for the assessee submitted a specific ground before the CIT(A), that the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 158BD is bad in law. He further argued that CIT(A) had dealt with this issue but he had not specifically adjudicated the same and as the first appellate authority had not adjudicated this issue, an application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules is moved by him and prayed that the same be admitted.
Contention of the Assessee: The ld counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (2006) 102 ITD 189 (Delhi) in which it was held that the scope of the Rule 27 permits the assessee to file an application when the assessee had agitated an issue before the ld CIT(A) and also the proposition that if the appellate authority has not adjudicated the issue, then it can be presumed that the issue had been decided against the assessee.
Assessee relied on the judgements of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bhusan Jain and others in ITA No.648/09 and 669/2009 etc order dated 08.01.2015, in which it was held that the revenue can be given at best, latitude of six months which can be considered as “immediate” or immediately proximate in point of time, after considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhina 362 ITR 673 (SC).
Contention of the Revenue: The ld DR submitted that under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, the present application is not maintainable as an application under Rule 27 can be filed only in support of the order of the CIT(A) and whereas the assessee seeks to dispute the order of the first appellate authority on the issue. Also submitted that as the first appellate authority has not adjudicated this matter and hence it cannot be presumed that the decision on this issue is against the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
