Case Law Details
Sanjay Sawhney Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a Respondent who may not have been aggrieved by the final order of the Lower Authority or the Court, and therefore, has not filed an appeal against the same, is entitled to defend such an order before the Appellate forum on all grounds, including the ground which has been held against him by the Lower Authority, though the final order is in its favour.
Held: Rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a Respondent who may not have been aggrieved by the final order of the Lower Authority or the Court, and therefore, has not filed an appeal against the same, is entitled to defend such an order before the Appellate forum on all grounds, including the ground which has been held against him by the Lower Authority, though the final order is in its favour. In the instant case, assessee was not an aggrieved party, as he had succeeded before the CIT (A) in the ultimate analysis. Not having filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the Revenue, it did not mean that an inference could be drawn that assessee had accepted the findings in part of the final order, that was decided against him. Therefore, when the Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, assessee was entitled under law to defend the same and support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. Assessee had taken the ground of maintainability before Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, in the appeal filed by Revenue, it could rely upon Rule 27 and advance his arguments, even though it had not filed cross objections against the findings which were against him. ITAT, therefore, committed a mistake by not permitting assessee to support the final order of CIT (A), by assailing the findings of the CIT(A) on the issues that had been decided against him. Assessee before the ITAT was entitled to agitate the jurisdictional issue relating to the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order passed by ITAT suffered from perversity in so far as it refused to allow the assessee to urge the grounds by way of an oral application under Rule 27. The matter was remanded back before the ITAT with a direction to hear the matter afresh by allowing assessee to raise the additional grounds, under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, pertaining to issues relating to the assumption of jurisdiction and the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’), Delhi Bench ‘F’ allowing Revenue’s appeal [ITA No. 4856/2015 for the Assessment Year 2008-09] and further remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) for fresh adjudication. Vide the aforesaid impugned order, the ITAT has inter alia rejected additional jurisdictional grounds urged by the Appellant- Assessee under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (‘ITAT Rules’) to assail the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. By way of this appeal, the Appellant challenges correctness of the reasoning of the ITAT for declining to consider pertinent issues that go into the root of the matter and relate to assumption of jurisdiction and validity of the reassessment proceedings undertaken by the revenue under Section 153C of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
