Can a respondent who did not appeal use Rule 27 to get the assessment annulled?
The Bombay High Court held that a respondent invoking Rule 27 may deploy a ground decided against him only to sustain the order under appeal. He cannot use it to obtain further relief, and certainly not to have the assessment itself annulled. The ceiling on a Rule 27 plea is therefore the order he already holds.
Decided by the High Court on 1972, reported as (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bombay). It bears on section 251, section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee had succeeded in part before the first appellate authority and had not filed an appeal of its own. When the Revenue appealed, the assessee sought to rely on a ground that had been decided against it below. The question was whether that ground, if accepted, could be used to go beyond defending the existing order and to strike down the assessment altogether. The Court held it could not.
A ground decided against the respondent can be used only to sustain the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot be used to get further relief, and it cannot be used to have the assessment itself annulled. If such a ground is entertained, effect is to be given to it only for the purpose of sustaining the order in appeal and dismissing the appeal.
Rule 27 is an enabling rule for a respondent, not a substitute for an appeal. A party who wanted the order improved had a remedy - an appeal or a cross-objection - and chose not to use it. Allowing the respondent to obtain more than it already has would make the appellant worse off for having appealed, which no appellate procedure permits. The rule therefore operates as a shield and its effect stops at dismissal of the appeal.
The assessee could use the argument only to sustain the order of the AAC but not to get further relief and have the assessment itself annulled.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Bombay High Court held that a respondent invoking Rule 27 may deploy a ground decided against him only to sustain the order under appeal. He cannot use it to obtain further relief, and certainly not to have the assessment itself annulled. The ceiling on a Rule 27 plea is therefore the order he already holds. This was decided by the High Court and bears on section 251, section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bombay). If it applies to you, the first step is this: Decide at the outset whether you want to defend the order or improve it - only the first is available under Rule 27.
The assessee had succeeded in part before the first appellate authority and had not filed an appeal of its own. When the Revenue appealed, the assessee sought to rely on a ground that had been decided against it below. The question was whether that ground, if accepted, could be used to go beyond defending the existing order and to strike down the assessment altogether. The Court held it could not. The matter was decided on 1972 by the High Court. On those facts the High Court held as follows. A ground decided against the respondent can be used only to sustain the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot be used to get further relief, and it cannot be used to have the assessment itself annulled. If such a ground is entertained, effect is to be given to it only for the purpose of sustaining the order in appeal and dismissing the appeal.
Rule 27 is an enabling rule for a respondent, not a substitute for an appeal. A party who wanted the order improved had a remedy - an appeal or a cross-objection - and chose not to use it. Allowing the respondent to obtain more than it already has would make the appellant worse off for having appealed, which no appellate procedure permits. The rule therefore operates as a shield and its effect stops at dismissal of the appeal. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The assessee could use the argument only to sustain the order of the AAC but not to get further relief and have the assessment itself annulled."
It was decided by the High Court on 1972 and is reported as (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bombay). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 251, section 253, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. A ground decided against the respondent can be used only to sustain the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot be used to get further relief, and it cannot be used to have the assessment itself annulled. If such a ground is entertained, effect is to be given to it only for the purpose of sustaining the order in appeal and dismissing the appeal. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 251, section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If any part of the first appellate order goes against you and you want it reversed, file your own appeal or a cross-objection; do not rely on Rule 27 alone. When arguing Rule 27, tell the bench expressly that the relief sought is dismissal of the appeal, nothing more - this keeps the plea within Bamasi. Watch the ceiling: even a winning jurisdictional argument under Rule 27 gets you no more than the order you already hold. Preserve the ground for a later year by pleading it independently in that year's appeal.
Still good law. A separate check of later treatment found the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sawhney v PCIT (2020) discussing Bamasi with approval on the limit of a Rule 27 plea - that such a ground cannot be used to disturb or set aside the order in favour of the appellant and can only sustain the order and lead to dismissal of the appeal. No overruling found. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-19. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
A ground decided against the respondent can be used only to sustain the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot be used to get further relief, and it cannot be used to have the assessment itself annulled. If such a ground is entertained, effect is to be given to it only for the purpose of sustaining the order in appeal and dismissing the appeal.
TaxSphere, “B.R. Bamasi v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/br-bamasi-v-cit-rule-27-defensive-only/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
How far can a respondent go under Rule 27 - can it reopen matters outside the subject-matter of the appeal?
Is Rule 27 a concession the Tribunal may refuse, or a right the respondent can insist on?
Does failing to file a cross-objection make the findings decided against you final?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
