AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the 2013-14. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
1.That the order is against law & facts on the record.
2.That notice u/s 143(2) was not in the prescribed performa vide Circular Dt. 23-06-2017 Rs. 84,85,500.00
3.Copy of the reasons to believe for S.148 does not have DIN by A.O/JCIT/P.CIT)
4.Reasons to believe are issued u/s 147(a) which have been omitted w.e.f. 01-04-1989.
5.That Ld. NFAC was wrong in not considering the submissions made by the assessee before him at the time of appeal proceedings explaining fully about the source of cash deposit in the Bank.
6.Ld. A.O. has not considered the agriculture income of Rs. 2,00,000.00 shown by the assessee in ITR and considered by Ld. A.O. in the Computation of Tax.
During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal which is reproduced as under :-
Sub:- Additional Grounds of appeal u/s 250(5)
Sir, With due respect, the assesse is filing an application to allow to file following additional grounds of appeal: -
Additional Grounds of appeal
7- That Ld. NFAC was wrong in confirming addition of cash deposit in Bank u/s 68 of I.T. Act 1961 as mentioned by Ld. A.O. in Para No. 3 and Ld. NFAC in Para No. 6.3 (Page no 16 of 19) as no cash deposit in bank can be added u/s 68 of the I.T. Act."
Additional Ground of appeal
8- On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, Ld. A.O. was wrong in issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated. 23-03-2022, not in the prescribed performa, is violation of CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dt. 23-06-2017. Therefore, the said notice is invalid, and assessment framed pursuant there to is vitiated in law."
Additional Ground of appeal
9- On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, Ld. A.O. was wrong in issuing reasons to believe to issue notice u/s 148 without mentioning the DIN in the reasons to believe therefore, the said reason to believe, is invalid and the assessment framed pursuant present there to is narrated in law.
Additional ground of appeal
10.Notices were sent manually while as per CBDT - notification No.1 2018 dated 12.08.2018 that all notices are to be signed digitally.
Written Submissions on the grounds of appeal No.7
The assesse submits that addition u/s 68 being bank cash deposits is not valid and for the same, the assesse relies upon :-
Anand Ram Raitani vs. CIT (1997) 223-ITR 544 (Gau)
"For invoking s. 68 the cash credits should be found in the books of account of the assesse-The books of the firm cannot be treated as the books of account of the assess-As the primary condition that the credit should be found in the books of account of the assesse, s.68 has no application and the assessment is not valid."
Additional ground of appeal no 8
Here the assesse relies upon Anita Garg, Hapur vs ITO A.Y. 2017-18 – ITA No.4053/Del/2024;
“Therefore, facts being identical respectfully following the above said decisions, we hold that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) dated 27.12.2019 pursuant to the notice issued u/s.143(2) dated 22.09.2018 which was not in the prescribed format as notified by the CBDT, is bad in law and void ab initio and the same is hereby quashed.
Additional ground of appeal no. 9
The assessee submits that the reasons to believe does not have DIN which is required by CBDT -Instruction No. 19/2019 Dt. 14-08-2019 and hence reasons to believe are not valid as per Para No. 4 of the Instruction. The assessee also relied upon sad Bhawna v. DCIT-(2024),204-ITD-785 Delhi as under -
Whether in terms of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, dated 14-8-2019,in order to maintain audit trail of all communication, no communication shall be issued by any income tax authority to assessee or any other person on or after 1-10-2019 unless a computer generated Document Identification Number (DIN),, has been alloted and is duly quoted in body of such communication. "
Additional ground of appeal no. 10
In the present case, Reasons to believe has been not signed digitally on 19-03-2021 but signed manually and are not valid and reason to believe assessment under is not valid;
Here the assessee also relies upon Out System Singapore Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT (2026) 239TTJ (Del) 738 which says that all notices are to be signed digitally as per CBDT - Notification No. 1 of 2018 Dt. 12-08-20
Additional Ground of appeal
The assessee submit that the additional grounds appeal is purely legal nature and do not require any further investigation.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, requested that the Additional Grounds of appeal ma allowed to have been filed & oblige.”
The Ld. Counsel requested the Bench to accept these additional grounds of appeal and adjudicate the case accordingly.
Per contra the Ld. DR argued that the issue raised in the additional grounds of appeal were not before the authorities below.
We have considered the additional grounds of appeal filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and we have heard both the parties. We find that in the fitness of things these additional grounds should be adjudicated first by the Ld. CIT(A) after due verification of doucments. Accordingly, we admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee and the matter is remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the relevant details and the documents before the Ld. CIT(A) in time.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.