Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963

Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Sanjay Sawhney v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I won before the CIT(A) but lost the jurisdiction point. Can I raise it in their appeal?
  Yes. Rule 27 lets a respondent who has not appealed support the order on a ground decided against him, provided the ground relates to the subject matter of the appeal and bears on the outcome. Not filing a cross-objection is not acceptance of the adverse findings, and the Rule prescribes no written application.
• ITO v Plus Corporate Ventures Pvt Ltd — Rule 27 lets a respondent who won on merits still knock out the assessment on jurisdiction, and the Revenue's appeal then goes as infructuous ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed my client's appeal on merits but rejected his challenge to the reopening. The department has appealed to the Tribunal and my client filed no cross-objection. Can he still argue that the reassessment was without jurisdiction?
  Yes, under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963, which provides that the respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. The Tribunal admitted the assessee's Rule 27 application challenging the validity of the s.147 proceedings, found the reasons recorded to be founded on facts that were demonstrably wrong, held the assumption of jurisdiction invalid, quashed the assessment order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous.
• Statutory position — section 253: the appeal to the Tribunal is now due within two months from the END OF THE MONTH of communication, not sixty days CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  How long do I actually have to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? I have always worked on sixty days from receipt of the order.
  Sixty days is no longer the rule. With effect from 1 October 2024 the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 (Act 15 of 2024) substituted the opening of s.253(3): an appeal under s.253(1) or s.253(2) must now be filed 'within two months from the end of the month in which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be'. A memorandum of cross-objections under s.253(4) is still due within thirty days of receipt of notice of the other side's appeal, and s.253(5) still lets the Tribunal admit a late appeal or cross-objection on sufficient cause.
• Statutory position — rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963: the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits when the appellant does not appear, it may not dismiss it for default, and the proviso gives it the power to recall CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My appeal was called on a day my counsel was in another court and the Tribunal passed an order against me without hearing anybody on my side. Can that order be recalled, and under what?
  Under the proviso to rule 24, and it is expressed as a duty rather than a discretion. Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, headed 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant', provides that where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The proviso then provides that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal. Rule 25 is the mirror image for a default by the respondent. What the rule does not permit is a dismissal for want of prosecution: the only course open on non-appearance is disposal on merits after hearing the other side.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.