TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Tribunal, a fresh assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer. In the assessment so completed vide an order dated 28.12.2007, the Assessing Officer computed the income of the assessee as per the normal provisions of the Act, but did not compute the book profit under section 115JA, although certain observations were made by him as regards the computation of book profit under section 115JA in the body of the fresh assessment order. The mistake in not computing book profit of the assessee-company under section 115JA was subsequently realized by the Assessing Officer and the same was rectified by him vide an order dated 17.11.2009 passed under section 154, whereby he computed the book profit of the assessee-company under section 115JA at Rs. 2,42,22,069/-. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the invocation of provisions of section 154 by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the issue relating to computation of book profit being a highly debatable issue was beyond the scope of section 154. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find merit in the case of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xmann.com 148) as well as the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO -vs.- Smt. Gurinder Kaur [102 ITD 189], he contended that the scope of Rule 27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules is wide enough giving sufficient powers to the Tribunal to cancel the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 and there is thus a mistake in the order of the Tribunal in not cancelling the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 when the rectification made by the said order by the Assessing Officer was found by the Tribunal to be beyond the scope of section 154. 5. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, contended that the scope of Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is very specific and the respondent by invoking the said Rule can only defend the order appeal against on any of the grounds decided against him even without filing an appeal. He contended that neither the assessee can claim nor the Tribunal can allow more relief by relying on Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules than what is allowed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the respondent. He contended that there is thus no mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2017 passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pting the assessee's grounds against the additions made by the Assessing Officer. On the question of validity of reopening of assessment, the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, held against the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee-company, however, did not prefer any appeal obviously because it was granted full relief by the ld. CIT(Appeals) by deleting all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Even after the Department preferred appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee did not file its Cross Objection raising the question of validity of the reopening of assessment. Later on, the assessee-company, however, raised the legal issue of the validity of assessment before the Tribunal by relying on Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules and despite objections raised from the Department, the Tribunal not only permitted the assessee to raise the legal issue but also decided the same in favour of the assessee by holding that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. Against the order of the Tribunal, the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the relevant question raised on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(Appeals) annulled the assessment holding it to be null and void but did not decide on merits. The Department filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal contending that the ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong in annulling the reassessment holding it to be null and void on the ground that the Assessing Officer only had to 'reason to suspect' and not to 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, following points were sought to be raised on behalf of the assessee in defence of the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals):- "(a) No reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment as required by section 148(2). (b) The reasons recorded, if any, were not supplied to the assessee despite repeated requests. (c) The notice under section 148 has not been served on the assessee and non-service of the notice is fatal to the validity of the reassessment. (d) The Assessing Officer has not taken the approval of the Jt. CIT before issuing the notice under section 148 as required by section 151(1) of the Act. (e) Section 148 cannot be used for making a fishing or roving en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent which amounted to a new ground. It is thus clear that the facts involved in the case of Smt. Gurinder Kaur (supra) cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee were materially different, inasmuch as no further or additional relief was sought by the assessee before the Tribunal than what had been allowed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the case was not only made out by the assessee de hors Rule27, but the same was also considered and decided by the Tribunal assuming that Rule 27 was not strictly applicable. In the present case, the case was argued by the assessee by relying on Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and no case having been made out de hors the said Rule, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to consider such alternative claim. (emphasis supplied) 9. It is observed that the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal had an occasion to consider the scope of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules in the case of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner -vs.- Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited [3 ITD 734] and it was held by the Tribunal that the right granted to the respondent under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is limited. All th....