AR cannot sign additional ground on behalf of assessee

Brief of the case:

Addition on behalf of undisclosed income of various amounts has been made against the assessee. Before ITAT assessee raised additional ground that addition was made before approval of concerned authorities prescribed u/s 158BG and hence invalid. ITAT dismissed the ground as non-maintainable as it have noticed that additional grounds were signed by the counsel of assessee not by assessee himself. Other various additions were decided separately by ITAT.

Facts of the case:

• Assessee is the proprietor of M/s Tamilarasi Publication. The business of this proprietory concern is publishing of two magazines namely, Tamilarasi, a weekly and Puthiaparvai, a fortnightly. Regular books of accounts are maintained in respect of this business.
• On 24.09.1996 search u/s 132 was conducted on residential and business premises of the assessee. Various documents were seized during search operation.
• Special search report was also sought by AO and made assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 158 BC at Rs. 3,77,41,760/-.
• Appeal to the ITAT Was dismissed and further appeal was preferred before Hon’ble HC.
• HC excluded a big amount from the Block assessment and remitted the case back to AO on other issues related to undisclosed income.
• During the previous year relevant to assessment year 1994-95 there was credit balance in the subscription deposit account of Rs. 70,32,500/-, which went up to Rs. 1,47,86,860/- for the year ending 31.03.1995. It was set to be received from 6000 parties ranging from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/- for which one of the magazines were given free of cost as along as deposit was not withdrawn, who has given Rs. 2,500/- two magazines were given free of cost.
• These deposits will not bear any interested and the assessee was asked to explain from whom it had received the deposits.
• As per report of special audit the entire deposits running to more than Rs. 147 lakhs are stated to be received in cash except for a negligible amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs which is stated to be received by way of drafts from Thirunelveli and Madurai.
• The auditor has reported that the depositors’ registers were not made available for the purpose of checking and verification.
• In short assessee does not know the names or have a record of the persons to whom the deposits have been returned. There is no correspondence also in this regard in the nature of request from the depositors for return of the deposits.
• The special auditor has reported that there is absolutely no evidence for dispatch of the magazines to these alleged subscribers.
• Hence this huge amount (85 % of the total) is added as income from undisclosed sources on account of subscriber deposits.
• During appellate proceedings before ITAT counsel of the assessee filed additional submissions that additions made are invalid as made without proper sanction or approval.

Contention of the revenue:

Out of 6000 person/ subscriber only 14 gave their confirmation.

Contention of the assessee: