TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, thereby denied the examination of the same by the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A(3) of I.T. Rules. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A), NFAC took the additional/fresh evidences dehors to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Reliance is placed on Income tax Reference No. 96 of 1987 in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Vs. CIT(Central), Kanpur, Allahabad High Court dated 20.01.2005 and ITAT, Lucknow's Order in ITA No. 624/LKW/2010 dated 28.05.2013 in the case of M/s. Yog International (P) Ltd Vs. PCIT(Central), Kanpur. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A), NFAC deserves to be set-aside. 4. The appellant craves to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal." 2. Vide its application dated 17.08.2025, the assessee has sought permission to raise the following grounds under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, as under:- "1. BECAUSE the entire re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 commencing from recording of reasons and concluding with passing of assessment order got wholly vitiated and consequently the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s aggrieved at this order passed by Assessing Officer and accordingly went before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was pointed out that the assessee was involved in the business of wholesale trading of Sugar and related products, which involved cash receipts from buyers. As per the practice of the partnership firm, the amount collected as cash was deposited in the bank account or either the same of the following day, depending upon the cash requirement of the business. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,11,02,500/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 were on account of business receipts of different natures. It was submitted by the assessee that in response to the show cause notice alongwith a draft assessment order, the assessee had submitted reply and stated that the cash deposits in the bank account were from the cash receipt / cash sales during the F.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the main working partner of the firm, Sh. Bijendra Rastogi was 75 years of age, not very tech savvy and not at all comfortable with email or Income Tax Portal. Hence, the notices issued by the Income Tax Department were not known to or received by him as the same was never physically sent at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see during the relevant previous year was out of cash sales and business receipts of the assessee which had been duly recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer holding the source of impugned cash deposits of Rs. 1,11,02,500/- to be explained. 5. The Department is aggrieved at this order of the ld. CIT(A) and has accordingly come before us. Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) representing the Revenue invited our attention to the grounds of appeal read with the order of the ld. CIT(A) pointed out that the assessee had filed his cash book, his sales register and his bank statement for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) had proceeded to consider those evidences and make them the basis for his order without calling for the remand report under section 250(4) and thus he had admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee in contravention to the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules thereby impeding examination of the same by the Assessing Officer in Rule 46A(3). The ld. Addl CIT DR further pointed out that the said orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in 138 ITR 245 Guj It was further submitted that the decision of the ITAT Delhi had been followed by the ITAT Lucknow in the case of ITO-6(1), Kanpur vs. Arti Security and Services Limited reported in (2021) 123 taxman.com 395 (Lucknow-Trib). Accordingly, it was prayed that these grounds may be admitted and since the case had been reopened on incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and reference to cash deposits without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer therefore, the entire assessment proceedings may be declared illegal, void ab initio and unsustainable in law. 7. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both parties. We note that the notice under section 148 was duly served upon the assessee through email which was available on record and the assessee did not file a return of income in response to the said notice. We also ascertained and discovered that the assessee had not filed any objection to the issue of the said notice under section 148. Neither did the assessee raise the question of the maintainability of notice under section 148 in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) or while fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent to expand the scope of an appeal and assail the decision on issues, which were not the subject matter of the appeal. Therefore, in consideration of the above, since the assessee has not raised the issue of maintainability of proceedings of 147 in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), he would not in our opinion be entitled to raise the same under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules for the purposes of seeking annulment of the assessment order. Accordingly, grounds no. 1, 2.1 and 2.2 raised under Rule 27 are dismissed as being out of the scope of Rule 27. As regards, ground no. 3, we note that since the ld. CIT(A)has held the cash deposits to be explained, he has, in effect, already ruled in favour of the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, the same is admitted for consideration. 8. In consideration of this ground and the grounds of appeal raised by the Department, we note that in its reply to the ld. AO on 25.03.2022, the assessee had provided the breakup of and an explanation for the cash deposits and requested opportunity for video conferencing, if further explanation was required. But the ld. AO proceeded to pass the order on the next day without affording such opportunity.....