Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Addl. CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Asst.Year - 2002-03 9.1. The Ld.DR further submitted that if the assessee wants to make the application under rule 27 of ITAT rules, then it has to make the application when the appeal was filed. In the case on hand, the appeal has been listed for hearing on several occasions, and at one occasion the appeal was treated as part heard, and another occasion the appeal was treated as heard but the same were subsequently released and fixed for the fresh hearing. But there was no application filed by the assessee under rule 27 of ITAT rules till the date of the present hearing. Accordingly, the Ld. DR vehemently objected on the admission of the application under rule 27 of ITAT rules.

Submitted for kind consideration.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(R.M. Vasavada) Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara"

10. The Ld. AR, in his rejoinder, submitted that the provision of rule 27 of ITAT rules, does not require to make an application in writing. Similarly, rule 27 of ITAT rules, does not prescribe any time limit to make the application on the issue decided against the assessee. As such, the assessee is authorized to make a submission under rule 27 of ITAT Rules at any stage of hearing but before the conclusion. Indeed the case has been listed for hearing on several occasions, but the application needs to be made when the hearing commences/begins. Otherwise, there is no other occasion to make such application.

17. However, we note that the dispute regarding the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act was very much in the notice of the Ld. DR as evident from the order sheet entries maintained by the registry office of the ITAT who sought times to revert on the issue raised under Addl. CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Asst.Year - 2002-03

- 13 -

rule 27 of ITAT Rules on the reasoning that he will take the report from the office of the AO. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, there remains no ambiguity that the affected party was duly given the opportunity. Accordingly, we are of the view the issue raised under rule 27 of ITAT rules was very much in the knowledge of the Ld. DR. As such the case was fixed for hearing on several occasions as part heard, meaning thereby the Ld. DR was very familiar with the issue as discussed above.

18. Besides the above, we also note that the assessee has also made an application under rule 27 of ITAT rules vide letter dated 13-03-2019. The relevant extract of the application has already been extracted in the preceding paragraph.

19. The above application was also supplied to the Ld. DR as well and the matter was heard up to 30th April 2019. Therefore it is clear that the other party was well-informed about the invocation of the issue under the rule 27 of ITAT Rules. Therefore we conclude that the Ld. AR has rightly invoked the provisions of rule 27 of ITAT rules.