Judgment Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. This Appeal by the Revenue arises from the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9 September 2011 for Assessment Year 2004-05. On the request of the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, we grant leave to amend the ground of appeal raised in terms of the draft tendered and taken on record and marked as "X" by consent. Amendment may be carried out forthwith and verification is dispensed with. 2. The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the entire matter of disallowance of Rs.28,69,951/-to the file of the A.O. to be decided afresh when the Assessee had withdrawn its appeal filed before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (A) upholding disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs.14,96,064/-and this disallowance had therefore become final. 3. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 4. The Assessee had made a claim on account of bad debts in the amount of Rs.28,69,951/-under Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer while passing an order of assessment under Section 143(3) on 27 June 2006 disallowed the claim and added back the amount to the income of the Assessee. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated 15 November 2007 confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 14,96,064/-. However, the Assessee was granted relief to the extent of Rs. 13,73,887/-under Section 36(2). 5. Both the Revenue and the Assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The grounds taken by the Revenue were as follows:- "1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,73,885/-, claimed as bad debts, holding that the same is allowable as business loss eligible for deduction u/s 28(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961; 2) Further placed in the above factual and legal scenario, the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,73,885/-, claimed as bad debts, holding that the same is allowable as business loss eligible for deduction u/s 28(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961; 2) Further placed in the above factual and legal scenario, the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) is, the appellant prays, patently perverse and contrary to law and consequently merits to be set aside and that of the AO be restored." The grounds taken by the Assessee were thus:-"1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the disallowance of business loss of Rs.14,96,064/-; 2) Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Appellant craves leave to raise an alternative ground i.e. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax in the alternative ought to have allowed the deduction under the head bad debts of Rs.14,96,064/." 6. The appeal filed by the Assessee was, however, barred by limitation, there being a delay of 551 days. During the course of the hearing before the Tribunal, the Assessee withdrew its appeal, but sought to press in aid the provisions of Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for raising the following grounds:- "1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in partly confirming the business loss amounting to Rs.14,96,064/-; 2) Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Appellant craves to raise an alternative ground, that the CIT(A) ought to have alternatively allowed the deduction under the head bad debts of Rs.14,96,064/-." 7. The Tribunal noted in its decision a decision of the Special Bench in DICT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 131 TTJ 641 (SB) : (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mum) (SB). The Tribunal held that in the absence of relevant details of brokerage being brought on record by the parties and in the interests of justice it was appropriate to remand the entire matter pertaining to the disallowance of Rs.28,69,951/-to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on this account was set aside in its entirety and the Assessing Officer was directed to decide afresh in view of the decision of the Special Bench. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that: (i) The Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire claim of Rs. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on this account was set aside in its entirety and the Assessing Officer was directed to decide afresh in view of the decision of the Special Bench. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that: (i) The Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire claim of Rs. 28,69,951/-on account of bad debts; (ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs.14,96,064/-, but allowed the appeal of the Assessee to a limited extent by granting the claim to the extent of Rs.13,73,887/-; (iii) Though the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the confirmation of the disallowance to the extent of Rs.14.96 lacs, the appeal was barred by limitation and was withdrawn by the Assessee; (iv) Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 would only permit the Assessee, as the Respondent, to the appeal by the Revenue, to support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against the Assessee; (v) Hence, the Assessee could have supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the extent to which the Appellate Authority had allowed the claim of the Assessee in the amount of Rs.13.73 lacs though on any ground which was decided against the Assessee; (vi) However, since the Assessee has withdrawn its appeal it could not assail the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the extent of the disallowance of Rs.14.96 lacs by taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 27. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee submits that the appeal which was filed by the Assessee was barred by limitation. Hence, the Assessee bonafide proceeded to withdraw the appeal under legal advise to the effect that the provisions of Rule 27 could be pressed in aid. 10. Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 provides as follows:- "27. Respondent may support order on grounds decided against him.:- The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him." 11. Under Rule 27 the Respondent is permitted to support the order appealed against, though he may not have appealed against the order, on any of the grounds decided against him. Under Rule 27 the Respondent is permitted to support the order appealed against, though he may not have appealed against the order, on any of the grounds decided against him. In B.R. Bamasi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1972 (83) ITR 223 (Bombay), a Division Bench of this Court noted an earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bombay) which had held that the Respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in his favour on any grounds which are available to him, even though the decision of the Lower Court in his favour may not have raised those grounds. In this regard the Division Bench had held that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to those of an Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 12. Now, in the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Assessee in part and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.13.73 lacs. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance in regard to the balance representing an amount of Rs.14.96 lacs. The Assessee's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was withdrawn, perhaps because it was barred by limitation. Once the appeal was withdrawn, it was only open to the Assessee to support the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on any of the grounds decided against him. Hence, while the Assessee would support the order, that would mean that the Assessee would be entitled to urge that the deletion of the disallowance to the extent of Rs.13.73 lacs by the CIT(A) was correct and proper. The Assessee, however, would not be entitled to avail of the benefit of the provisions of Rule 27 in regard to that part of the order of the CIT(A) which, upon consideration of the evidence, confirmed the disallowance of Rs.14.96 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. 13. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) in its entirety and by restoring the proceedings to the Assessing Officer in regard to the disallowance to the extent of Rs.28.69 lacs. 13. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) in its entirety and by restoring the proceedings to the Assessing Officer in regard to the disallowance to the extent of Rs.28.69 lacs. The order of the Tribunal would have to be confirmed only to the extent to which it restores the proceedings to the Assessing Officer as regards the amount of Rs.13.73 lacs. We, accordingly, answer the question of law in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 14. However, on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee, we leave it open to the Assessee, if he is so advised, to adopt any proceedings or remedies that may be available in law in regard to the restoration of the appeal which was withdrawn before the Tribunal. We do not make any observation in regard to the maintainability of such an application and it would be open to the Tribunal to deal with such application, if it is made, in accordance with law. 15. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.