CHIMANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI POKAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

MA 76/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal (HUF) appealing against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's order dated 23 June 2025. The assessee contended that the Tribunal made factual errors regarding the financial status of M/s Vindus Holdings Ltd., the timeline of share dematerialisation, and the handling of additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the record, concluded that the application merely sought a re-examination of evidence and reconsideration of detailed findings, which is outside the scope of section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788613 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: JIGNESH PARIKH
• Keywords: Bogus
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.76/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. Nos.1525/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal (HUF), 8, Satatya Green Bungalows, B/h. Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AABHP7994M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jignesh Parikh, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of several mistakes that, according to the assessee, have crept into the Tribunal’s order dated 23 June 2025. The assessee has submitted that certain findings recorded in paragraphs 9 and 9.1 of the ITAT order are contrary to the material placed on record and therefore constitute mistakes apparent from the record. It is stated that the Tribunal held that the company whose shares were sold, M/s Vindus Holdings Ltd., did not have sound financials, but the assessment order contains no data, financial statements, earnings analysis or any evidence supporting this conclusion. According to the assessee, such an observation, Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 76/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1525/Ahd/2024) Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal-HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 2– made without any basis in the record, amounts to a clear factual mistake. The assessee also has submitted that the Tribunal relied on the fact that other family members had opted for settlement under the VSV Scheme, which the assessee has submitted is legally irrelevant because settlement under VSV cannot be treated as an admission of wrongdoing nor as a precedent against the assessee. The assessee further argued that the Tribunal erred in observing that the shares were dematerialised only shortly before being sold. The correct timeline, according to the assessee, is that the shares were dematerialised on 18 February 2011, whereas the first sale was much later on 24 October 2011, which shows a gap of over eight months. The assessee also highlights a more serious factual error in paragraph 9.1 of the Tribunal’s order, where the Bench recorded that the shares appeared in the assessee’s account on 15 February 2010 even though the allotment itself took place on 19 November 2010. The assessee has submitted that the documents in the paper book clearly show that the shares were credited in the Demat account on 18 February 2011 and not in February 2010, and that this incorrect assumption led the Tribunal to a fundamentally wrong inference that the credit preceded allotment, which contributed to the finding of a sham transaction. These, according to the assessee, are mistakes apparent from the record and go to the root of the finding that the long-term capital gain was bogus. The assessee also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in remanding Ground No. 2 relating to the addition under section 68 of ₹32,70,000 despite all relevant material being already on record. The assessee states that bank statements, cash book and cash flow position were submitted, and there was no finding by the Assessing Officer that the cash withdrawals Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 76/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1525/Ahd/2024) Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal-HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 3– were not genuine or that the funds were used elsewhere. Therefore, according to the assessee, remanding the matter for a fresh examination causes unnecessary hardship and constitutes an error on the face of the record. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of what are alleged to be mistakes apparent from the record in the Tribunal’s order dated 23.06.2025. On careful consideration, we find that the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application are nothing but an attempt to seek a review of the detailed findings already recorded by this Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 9.1 and 11 of the order passed in I.T.A. No.1525/Ahd/2024. Section 254(2) confers only a limited jurisdiction to rectify an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record; it does not permit the Tribunal to revisit or re- adjudicate factual findings or to substitute them with an alternative view as is being sought through the present application. 3. In so far as the assessee’s objections to the observations made in paragraph 9 of the order are concerned, the findings of the Tribunal were based on the material emanating from the assessment order itself, wherein the Assessing Officer has clearly referred to the weak financials of M/s Vindus Holdings Ltd. The record shows that the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that the company was not financially sound and lacked credentials to justify the astronomical rise in its share price. The assessee’s assertion that there was no such material on record is therefore factually incorrect. We also note that even in the present Miscellaneous Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 76/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1525/Ahd/2024) Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal-HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 4– Application, the assessee has not correctly appreciated or analysed the factual matrix already reflected in the assessment order and reproduced in the Tribunal’s order. 4. Likewise, the findings in paragraph 9.1, relating to the unusual chronology of allotment and credit of shares, were based on the documents placed on record, including the stock holding statement reproduced before the Tribunal. The assessee’s attempt to re-explain the timeline and to persuade the Bench to take a different view clearly falls outside the scope of rectification and amounts to seeking a review, which is not permissible under section 254(2). The Tribunal’s observations are reasoned findings supported by the material available on record and cannot be reopened in rectification proceedings. 5. As regards Ground No. 2 relating to the addition under section 68, the Tribunal has recorded detailed findings in paragraph 11 and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer only after considering the nature of evidence placed and the absence of necessary verification. The assessee’s contention that all required material was already on record merely seeks to re-argue the matter and overturn a conscious judicial decision. Such a plea cannot be entertained in an application under section 254(2), which is confined strictly to rectification of obvious and self-evident errors. 6. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the assessee has failed to point out any mistake apparent from the record. The application merely raises issues that require re-examination of evidence and reconsideration of detailed Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 76/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1525/Ahd/2024) Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai Pokal-HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 5– findings, which is outside the purview of section 254(2). The present Miscellaneous Application is therefore devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA P. SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/11/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 21.11.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 21.11.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .11.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 25.11.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 25.11.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 25.11.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "