Since the assessee had not filed any application under rule 27, the objection raised by assessee was not admissible in the Tribunal. Alternatively, the Tribunal observed that assessee had never assailed the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) before CIT(A) on the ground that AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to impose penalty without striking off irrelevant default. As a result CIT(A) had no reason to decide the impugned issue against the assessee and therefore assessee could not have supported CIT(A) order on the said ground.Accordingly, new oral ground raised by Authorised Representative in Department’s appeal is not maintainable.( AY.2010-11)

[Note .Refer . Additional grounds can be raised orally – Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules .Amines Plasticizers Ltd v. CIT ( 1997) 223 ITR 173 ( Guwahati) (HC) Assam Carbon Products Ltd v .CIT ( 1997) 224 ITR 57 (Guwahti) (HC) Baby Samuel v ACIT ( 2003) 262 ITR 385 (Bom) (HC ) Shilpa Associates v ITO ( 2003)  263 ITR 317 (Raj) (HC)  ]