9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 946 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 154 - invoke Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to raise a preliminary issue challenging the invocation of provisions of section 154 - issue relating to the computation of book profit under section 115JA as within or beyond the scope of section 154? - Held that - The scope of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is limited and the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal can invoke the said Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 only to support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him and cannot seek any further or more relief than what has been granted to him by the ld. CIT(Appeals). We, therefore, find no mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2017 (supra) in not granting such more relief to the assessee by relying on Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. In our opinion, there is thus no mistake much less a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2017 (supra) as alleged by the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application. We, therefore, dismiss this Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee being devoid of any merit. Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of the Tribunal's Order under Section 254(2). 2. Scope of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rectification of the Tribunal's Order under Section 254(2): The assessee sought rectification of a perceived mistake in the Tribunal's order dated June 23, 2017, under Section 254(2). The original assessment determined the income under normal provisions at ?10,78,00,000 and book profit under Section 115JA at ?8,18,91,021. The assessment was set aside and recomputed, but the book profit under Section 115JA was not calculated. This omission was later rectified by the Assessing Officer under Section 154, computing the book profit at ?2,42,22,069. The assessee appealed against the invocation of Section 154, arguing that the computation of book profit was a highly debatable issue and beyond the scope of Section 154. The CIT(A) partly agreed, directing the exclusion of 60% of the profit as agricultural profit and similar relief for interest income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the issue highly debatable and beyond the scope of rectification under Section 154. The assessee argued that the Tribunal should have canceled the entire order of the Assessing Officer under Section 154, citing decisions from the Gujarat High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found no mistake in its order, noting that the scope of Rule 27 does not allow for additional relief beyond what was granted by the CIT(A). 2. Scope of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: The Tribunal examined the scope of Rule 27, which allows a respondent to support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against him without filing an appeal. The assessee argued that this rule should allow for the cancellation of the Assessing Officer's order under Section 154. However, the Tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements to clarify that Rule 27 does not permit seeking additional relief beyond what was granted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal referenced the cases of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited and Smt. Gurinder Kaur, noting that in both instances, the respondents did not seek additional relief but only defended the orders appealed against. The Tribunal also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jamnadas Virji Shares & Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited, which held that Rule 27 allows a respondent to support the order on grounds decided against him but not to seek additional relief. The Tribunal concluded that the scope of Rule 27 is limited to supporting the order appealed against and does not extend to seeking further relief. Therefore, there was no mistake in the Tribunal's order dated June 23, 2017, and the assessee's miscellaneous application was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, finding no mistake in its previous order. The Tribunal reiterated that Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, allows a respondent to support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against him but does not permit seeking additional relief beyond what was granted by the CIT(A).
|
