BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI V. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

MA 218/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application by M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The original dispute involved allegations of receiving accommodation entries from M/s Bhavna Exim Pvt. Ltd., which were not substantiated by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal had previously upheld the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, citing the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee contended that there were mistakes apparent from the record in the Tribunal's earlier decision, which the Tribunal found to be unsubstantiated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773489 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNMIYA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Retraction; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3599/MUM/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., 118/120, 3rd floor, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(1), Room No. 653, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Raod, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AADCB 0236 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Mr. Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee seeks recall of the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 3599/Mum/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009–10. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the grounds taken in the Miscellaneous Application, contended that the impugned order suffers from several mistakes apparent from the Printed from counselvise.com record which warrant rectification/recall. He advanced elaborate submissions in support of the issues raised. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, had noticed the facts that the assessee had received accommodation entries from M/s Bhavna Exim Pvt. Ltd., controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. During the course of the original appeal, the assessee had raised additional grounds challenging the validity of reassessment, which were duly considered by the Tribunal in paras 3.5 to 6.1 of the order. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjudicated the merits of the addition in para 7.1, which, for the sake of completeness, under: “7.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as regular grounds of appeal are concerned the Ld. counsel for the assessee has taken only argument that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain has retracted his s tax Authorities on the time of the search and the Assessing Officer has not examined Shri Pravin Kumar Jain after he is retracted his statement and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act cann sustained. However, we find that the Assessing Officer has firstly not made the addition merely on the basis of statement, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to discharge its onus u/s 68 of the Act whereas assessee failed in doing so. The parti address provided and the assessee did not provide new address or produce those parties for examination before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Ld. Assessing M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 record which warrant rectification/recall. He advanced elaborate submissions in support of the issues raised. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ibunal, in the impugned order, had noticed the facts that the assessee had received accommodation entries from M/s Bhavna Exim Pvt. Ltd., controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. During the course of the original appeal, the assessee had raised additional unds challenging the validity of reassessment, which were duly considered by the Tribunal in paras 3.5 to 6.1 of the order. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjudicated the merits of the addition in para 7.1, which, for the sake of completeness, is We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as regular grounds of appeal are concerned the Ld. counsel for the assessee has taken only argument that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain has retracted his statement recorded by the Income tax Authorities on the time of the search and the Assessing Officer has not examined Shri Pravin Kumar Jain after he is retracted his statement and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act cann sustained. However, we find that the Assessing Officer has firstly not made the addition merely on the basis of statement, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to discharge its onus u/s 68 of the Act whereas assessee failed in doing so. The parties were not found at the address provided and the assessee did not provide new address or produce those parties for examination before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Ld. Assessing M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2 M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 record which warrant rectification/recall. He advanced elaborate We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ibunal, in the impugned order, had noticed the facts that the assessee had received accommodation entries from M/s Bhavna Exim Pvt. Ltd., controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. During the course of the original appeal, the assessee had raised additional unds challenging the validity of reassessment, which were duly considered by the Tribunal in paras 3.5 to 6.1 of the order. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjudicated the merits of the addition in is reproduced as We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As far as regular grounds of appeal are concerned the Ld. counsel for the assessee has taken only argument that Shri Pravin Kumar tatement recorded by the Income- tax Authorities on the time of the search and the Assessing Officer has not examined Shri Pravin Kumar Jain after he is retracted his statement and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. However, we find that the Assessing Officer has firstly not made the addition merely on the basis of statement, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to discharge its onus u/s 68 of the Act whereas assessee es were not found at the address provided and the assessee did not provide new address or produce those parties for examination before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Ld. Assessing Printed from counselvise.com Officer is justified in making addition. Further, the retraction statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain were never produce before the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) before us also a photocopy has been filed that too without any application that to additional evidence. We are of the view that assessee can produce a retr Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and assessee could have produced the relevant director of the Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. for verification before the AO. But the assessee miserably failed in producing said party for verification by the Assessing Offi of the Act returned unserved at the address provided by the assessee. Thus neither the identity of the said party was not establish the Ld. CIT(A) was creditworthiness of the said party was also not established has been filed before us to substantiate the creditworthiness of the parties. In the circumstances, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismissed the regular grounds of appeal of the assessee.” 4. The first contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal erred in not considering that quantitative details of purchase and sales were never doubted by the revenue authorities. We find that the Tribunal, while sustaining the addition, has held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act, and further that the retraction of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain’s statement was not properly placed before the lower authorities. The addition was thus upheld on independent reasoning. Hence, no apparent mis arises merely because separate discussion was not made on the issue of quantitative tally. 5. The second contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal ignored the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 Officer is justified in making addition. Further, the tatement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain were never produce before the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) before us also a photocopy has been filed that too without any application that to additional evidence. We are of the view that assessee can produce a retraction affidavit from Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and assessee could have produced the relevant director of the Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. for verification before the AO. But the assessee miserably failed in producing said party for verification by the Assessing Officer despite the facts that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act returned unserved at the address provided by the assessee. Thus neither the identity of the said party was not establish the Ld. CIT(A) was creditworthiness of the said party was also not established having contrary has been filed before us to substantiate the creditworthiness of the parties. In the circumstances, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismissed the regular grounds of appeal of the contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal erred in not considering that quantitative details of purchase and sales were never doubted by the revenue authorities. We find that the Tribunal, while sustaining the addition, has held that the assessee led to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act, and further that the retraction of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain’s statement was not properly placed before the lower authorities. The addition was thus upheld on independent reasoning. Hence, no apparent mis arises merely because separate discussion was not made on the issue of quantitative tally. The second contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal ignored the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3 M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 Officer is justified in making addition. Further, the tatement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain were never produce before the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) before us also a photocopy has been filed that too without any application that to additional evidence. We are of the action affidavit from Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and assessee could have produced the relevant director of the Bafna Exim Pvt. Ltd. for verification before the AO. But the assessee miserably failed in producing said party for verification by the cer despite the facts that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act returned unserved at the address provided by the assessee. Thus neither the identity of the said party was not establish the Ld. CIT(A) was creditworthiness of having contrary has been filed before us to substantiate the creditworthiness of the parties. In the circumstances, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismissed the regular grounds of appeal of the contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal erred in not considering that quantitative details of purchase and sales were never doubted by the revenue authorities. We find that the Tribunal, while sustaining the addition, has held that the assessee led to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act, and further that the retraction of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain’s statement was not properly placed before the lower authorities. The addition was thus upheld on independent reasoning. Hence, no apparent mistake arises merely because separate discussion was not made on the The second contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal Andaman Timber Printed from counselvise.com Industries v. CCE [(2015) 127 DT considered opinion, the applicability of that decision could arise only after the assessee had first discharged its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the purchases by producing concerned parties. As the Tribunal r assessee failed to do so, no infirmity arises in not invoking Andaman Timber Industries raised in the original grounds of appeal nor argued specifically, and therefore does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. 6. The next grievance relates to the alleged non a retraction certificate of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The Tribunal has clearly observed in para 7 of its order that no such document was placed before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), and before the Tribunal only a photocopy was filed without a proper application. Hence, the Tribunal rightly declined to take cognizance. There is thus no mistake apparent. allegation of the as threshold. 7. The ld Counsel further submitted that consider that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order has not attached the sales part relating to it the payment from Bhavna Exim Pvt. Ltd. M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 [(2015) 127 DTR 241 / 281 CTR 241 (SC)]. In our considered opinion, the applicability of that decision could arise only after the assessee had first discharged its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the purchases by producing concerned parties. As the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the assessee failed to do so, no infirmity arises in not invoking Andaman Timber Industries (supra). Moreover, the issue was neither raised in the original grounds of appeal nor argued specifically, and constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The next grievance relates to the alleged non-consideration of a retraction certificate of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The Tribunal has clearly observed in para 7 of its order that no such document was before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), and before the Tribunal only a photocopy was filed without a proper application. Hence, the Tribunal rightly declined to take cognizance. There is thus no mistake apparent. Thus, we don’t find any substance in tion of the assessee and same is liable to be rejected at The ld Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order has not attached the sales part relating to it the payment from Bhavna Exim Pvt. Ltd. We note that neither such arguments M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4 M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 R 241 / 281 CTR 241 (SC)]. In our considered opinion, the applicability of that decision could arise only after the assessee had first discharged its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the purchases by producing concerned ecorded a categorical finding that the assessee failed to do so, no infirmity arises in not invoking (supra). Moreover, the issue was neither raised in the original grounds of appeal nor argued specifically, and constitute a mistake apparent from the record. consideration of a retraction certificate of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The Tribunal has clearly observed in para 7 of its order that no such document was before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), and before the Tribunal only a photocopy was filed without a proper application. Hence, the Tribunal rightly declined to take cognizance. There is Thus, we don’t find any substance in liable to be rejected at the Tribunal failed to consider that the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order has not attached the sales part relating to it the payment was received We note that neither such arguments Printed from counselvise.com were made during the course of hearing, nor any specific ground was raised regarding the claim in the appeal. 8. The ld Counsel further submitted that notice that assessee had discharged its onus by way of submitting ledger extract, copy of bank statement, confirmation of the accounts and copies of the sales invoice issue has already been discu adjudicating merit of addition, therefore, recalling the order on this issue would amount to not permitted while adjudicating the miscellaneous application u/ 254(2) of the Act. 9. The further contention that the reassessment ought to have been initiated in the case of M/s Excess Diamond Pvt. Ltd. instead of the assessee was never raised by way of specific grounds. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for not adjudicating an issue never ur 10. Similarly, the argument that the Tribunal wrongly recorded the outcome of notice under section 133(6) is misconceived. The Tribunal only reproduced the factual findings of the Assessing Officer that the parties were not found at the given address, observed that the assessee had failed to provide alternate addresses or produce the parties for verification. No error apparent emerges therefrom. M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 during the course of hearing, nor any specific ground was raised regarding the claim in the appeal. 8. The ld Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that assessee had discharged its onus by way of submitting copy of bank statement, confirmation of the accounts and copies of the sales invoice in respect of sales transaction. This issue has already been discussed by the Tribunal while adjudicating merit of addition, therefore, recalling the order on this issue would amount to review of the order of Tribunal not permitted while adjudicating the miscellaneous application u/ The further contention that the reassessment ought to have been initiated in the case of M/s Excess Diamond Pvt. Ltd. instead of the assessee was never raised by way of specific grounds. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for not adjudicating an issue never ur Similarly, the argument that the Tribunal wrongly recorded the outcome of notice under section 133(6) is misconceived. The Tribunal only reproduced the factual findings of the Assessing Officer that the parties were not found at the given address, observed that the assessee had failed to provide alternate addresses or produce the parties for verification. No error apparent emerges M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5 M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 during the course of hearing, nor any specific ground the Tribunal failed to notice that assessee had discharged its onus by way of submitting copy of bank statement, confirmation of the accounts in respect of sales transaction. This ssed by the Tribunal while adjudicating merit of addition, therefore, recalling the order on this review of the order of Tribunal, which we are not permitted while adjudicating the miscellaneous application u/ The further contention that the reassessment ought to have been initiated in the case of M/s Excess Diamond Pvt. Ltd. instead of the assessee was never raised by way of specific grounds. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for not adjudicating an issue never urged. Similarly, the argument that the Tribunal wrongly recorded the outcome of notice under section 133(6) is misconceived. The Tribunal only reproduced the factual findings of the Assessing Officer that the parties were not found at the given address, and observed that the assessee had failed to provide alternate addresses or produce the parties for verification. No error apparent emerges Printed from counselvise.com 11. The ld Counsel further submitted that notice that mere confession/statement controlled companies which were providing accommodation entries is not sufficient to give the Assessing Officer reason to b income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He further submitted the Tribunal failed to conside the part of the assessee in disclosing the facts fully and truly. We may note that objection of the assessee on reasons recorded have been disposed off by the Tribunal in para 4.3 to 6.1 with detailed finding. As the Tribunal attempt to re-agitate this issue would amount to review, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act find any mistake apparent form record on this issues. 12. Having examined all the Application, we find that the same are either issues already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, or new issues not raised in the original appeal, or matters which, if entertained now, would amount to review of the earli jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, and does not extend to the appeal on merits. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, apparent from the record has been demonstrated in the Tribunal’s M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 The ld Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that mere confession/statement by a person that he controlled companies which were providing accommodation entries is not sufficient to give the Assessing Officer reason to b income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He further submitted the Tribunal failed to consider that there was a failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the facts fully and truly. We may note that objection of the assessee on reasons recorded have been disposed off by the Tribunal in para 4.3 to 6.1 with detailed finding. As the Tribunal already adjudicated this agitate this issue would amount to review, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, therefore, find any mistake apparent form record on this issues. Having examined all the contentions urged in the Miscellaneous Application, we find that the same are either issues already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, or new issues not raised in the original appeal, or matters which, if entertained now, would amount to review of the earlier order. It is trite law that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, and does not extend to the appeal on merits. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that no mistake apparent from the record has been demonstrated in the Tribunal’s M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6 M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 the Tribunal failed to by a person that he controlled companies which were providing accommodation entries is not sufficient to give the Assessing Officer reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He further r that there was a failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the facts fully and truly. We may note that objection of the assessee on reasons recorded have been disposed off by the Tribunal in para 4.3 to 6.1 with detailed adjudicated this ground, any agitate this issue would amount to review, which is therefore, we don’t find any mistake apparent form record on this issues. contentions urged in the Miscellaneous Application, we find that the same are either issues already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, or new issues not raised in the original appeal, or matters which, if entertained now, would amount er order. It is trite law that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, and does not extend to re-adjudicating we hold that no mistake apparent from the record has been demonstrated in the Tribunal’s Printed from counselvise.com order. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 order. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. ounced in the open Court on 22/09/202 Sd/- Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7 M.A. No. 218/Mum/2024 order. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the /2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "