IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.670/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid hearing)

Sajithkumar Subi, ITO Ward- 2(4), Bharuch

60, Raghuveer Society, Opp. बनाम/ Harikunj Building, Above Bank of Surwadi, Bor Bhatha Road, Vs. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch Ankleshwar, Gujarat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AXCPK0947P (अपीलाथ५/Appellant) (ঋ(cid:529)थ५ /Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती की ओर से /Appellant by Ms. Kinjal Shah, CA राज(cid:738) की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 12/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from order passed under section

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 06.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”] for assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) u/s 147 rws 144 of the Act on 22.11.2019.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

1. The Ld. AO has added cash deposit of Rs.15,48,200/- under 69A as total income of the assessee. This income forms part of the business income of the assessee. So, the act of the Ld. AO of considering the gross receipts without considering the expenses is not appropriate.

2. The Ld. AO has considered 15% of Contract Income shown in 26AS as unexplained income. But this percentage is very high for newly set business unit.

3. The appellant has raised additional grounds of appeal during the course of hearing which are as follows:

On Legality:

1(a) The CIT(A) has erred both in law and in fact in upholding the assessment order dated 22.11.2019 passed u/s.144 rws 147 which was time barred and beyond limitation since the notice u/s.148 was issued on 27.03.2019.

1(b) On facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment being time barred the assessment order and demand raised thereunder requires to be cancelled.

2. With prejudice to the above, your appellant submitted that the AO has not issued copy of reasons recorded as well as copy of approval to PCIT u/s.151 which is obligatory particularly because the assessment was time barred.

3. Further your appellant submits the AO has blindly followed information gathered but has not indicated what information was gathered from what source and the AO failed to apply his mind to the validity of such information and whether the amount so mentioned in the information was in the nature of income or was part of sales of business of the appellant.

On Merits :

1. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the entire amount of Rs.15,48,200/-

deposited in ICICI Bank account is part and parcel of gross business income of your appellant, i.e., sale process and no expenditure is deducted which is contrary to provisions of law.

2. The entire amount is derived from business of your appellant and if at all any amount is liable to be included then it is only 2% of the net profit of business.

3. The CIT(A) has also erred in not dealing with the ground of addition as under:

(a) Rs.59,914/- (15% of gross contract receipts of Rs.3,99,428/- under 26AS), for which your appellant submitted that 26AS does not apply and without prejudice if there is any case of addition then it should be net profit @ 2%

as addition of business.

It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Office be modified accordingly.

Your appellant reserves right to add, alter, amend to withdraw any or all ground of appeal.”

4. Let us first decide as to whether the additional grounds raised by the appellant could be admitted by us. The Rule regarding grounds of appeal to be considered by ITAT is Rule 11 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

The same reads as under:

“Grounds which may be taken in appeal. –

11. The appellant shall not, exce