" 1 M.A No. 334/Del/2023 ACIT VS. REENA JAIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A NO. 334/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) in (ITA No. 411/Del/2022) ACIT Central Circle-26 Delhi (APPLICANT) vs Reena Jain C-9/46, Ssector-8, Rohini,Delhi PAN: AAIPJ5866F (RESPONDENT) Applicant by Ms. Shilpi Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Miscellaneous Application is filed in respect of order dated 03/03/2023 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 411/Del/2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grievance of the Revenue in the present M.A is that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal both have ignored the true valuation of property made by DVO and rejected the Appeal of the Revenue holding that the addition is made by the A.O. without incriminating document and contended that ‘non- explanation by the purchase price and source of purchase during the course of search proceedings’ is itself incriminating evidence which is duly supported by DVO and Inspectors report, therefore, deleting the addition by the Tribunal by Date of Hearing 09.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 2 M.A No. 334/Del/2023 ACIT VS. REENA JAIN relying on the Judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (2015) is an error apparent from record. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that there is no error apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal and the present M.A cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the Assessee gave a specific factual finding that the addition as not made on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and the assessment has been made solely based on the report of the DVO. Even the CIT(A) has also observed the same while deleting the addition. In view of the same, the said finding of fact by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal cannot be re-visited u/s 254(2) of the Act in the present M.A filed by the Revenue. Apart from the same, there is a delay of 319 days in filing the present Miscellaneous Application. It is well settled law that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous application u/s 254 (2) of the Act, therefore, the present application is dismissed on delay in latches. 5. In the result, M.A filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th JUNE, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18 /06/ 2025 R.N, Sr. PS 3 M.A No. 334/Del/2023 ACIT VS. REENA JAIN Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "
Mehul