Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) As regards the fourth and fifth questions of law raised in TCA No.188 of 2016, relating to the applicability of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, the learned counsel submitted that the assessee was entitled to raise this issue of the validity of the reassessment even though it was decided against the assessee by the CIT(A) and no appeal was filed by them. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abdul Rahman Sait, reported in [(2008) 306 ITR 142 (Mad)], the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sawhney v. PCIT in [(2020) 273 Taxman 332 (Del)] and the order of this Court in the assessee's own case [TCA No.452 of 2009 - Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Cements Ltd. Dated 04.03.2020] for another assessment ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 12:03:13 pm )  TCA Nos.187 & 188 of 2016 year, which was held in favour of the assessee as regards the issue of the applicability of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

8. In respect of appeal viz., ITA No.710/Mds/2009 (impugned in TCA No.188 of 2016), wherein the assessee invoked Rule 27 of ITAT Rules and submitted that reassessment was invalid, the ITAT held that the reopening was made four years from the end of the Assessment Year; that there was nothing on record to show that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all the particulars of the income; that the Assessing Officer ought not to have reopened the assessment as it was only a change of opinion and accordingly, set aside the reassessment. The ITAT also held that the findings of the CIT(A) are confirmed in accordance with Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.

12. In the decision of the Bombay High Court relied on by the appellant/revenue in Jamnadas Virji Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), the benefit of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 12:03:13 pm )  TCA Nos.187 & 188 of 2016 was not permitted since the assessee therein had filed an appeal / cross objection and withdrew the same. Therefore, we are of the view that the said decision would have no application to the interpretation of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.

18. In this case, as submitted earlier, the respondent/assessee had raised the ground with regard to the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 12:03:13 pm )  TCA Nos.187 & 188 of 2016 validity of the reassessment before the CIT(A). The assessee had filed a written application before the ITAT under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, seeking to sustain the order passed by the CIT(A) also on the validity of reassessment. The ITAT was justified in the facts and circumstances in accepting the ground raised by the assessee that the reassessment was only a change of opinion and hence unsustainable in law. Therefore, we answer the fourth substantial question of law in favour of the respondent/assessee.