DCIT, LUCKNOW V. MUKUT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , LUCKNOW

MA 49/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (M.A. Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025) filed by the Revenue against Mukut Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., concerning the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The applications sought to rectify the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's consolidated order dated 24/03/2025, which had deleted certain additions made to the assessee's income. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had overlooked certain additions based on unexplained cash and lease agreements, which were allegedly supported by seized documents. However, the Tribunal found that these additions were not based on incriminating materials discovered during the search and that the issues were debatable, thus not suitable for rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792068 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., DCIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., Smt. Shashi Agarwal vs. DCIT, Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Document seized; Documents seized; Rectification of order
• Section: 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"M.A. Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.ANos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025 (in I.T.A. Nos.712 & 713/Lkw/2024) Assessment Year:2016-17 & 17-18 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Lucknow. Vs. Mukut Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M-18, Gole Market, Mahanagar, Lucknow-226006 PAN:AAECM7289C (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) These Miscellaneous Applications (“MA\" for short) vide M.A.Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2024 pertain to appeal filed by the assessee vide I.T.A. Nos.712 & 713/Lkw/2024. Both the aforesaid appeals were disposed of through a consolidated order dated 24/03/2025 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. Through these Misc. Applications, Revenue has pointed out certain mistakes in the order passed by the ITAT and has requested to amend/rectify consolidated order dated 24/03/2025. (B) In these Misc. Applications, request has been made to amend/rectify consolidated order dated 24/03/2025 in I.T.A. Nos.712 & 713/Lkw/2024 respectively. In the aforesaid consolidated order dated 24/03/2025; relying Appellant by Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Respondent by Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 2 on orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/(2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) and DCIT vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (2023) 140 taxmann.com 108 (SC) along with orders of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow in the cases of Smt. Shashi Agarwal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 687 (Lucknow-Trib.) and Ocean Dream Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (order dated 21/10/2025 in I.T.A. No.146 and 147/Lkw/2023); the additions made were deleted. In the aforesaid consolidated order dated 24/03/2025; reliance was also placed on Instruction of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide Instruction No. 1 of 2023 (in F.No.279/Misc./M-54/2023-IT). The aforesaid consolidated order dated 24/03/2025 was passed, as no material was brought to the attention of the Bench, by either side, to distinguish the facts and circumstances of the case from the aforesaid precedents; and moreover, perusal of assessment orders and impugned orders of learned CIT(A) showed that additions were not based on any incriminating materials found in the course of search under section 132 of the I. T. Act at the premises of the (respective) assessee(s). (B.1) During the course of hearing before us, learned Departmental Representative relied on the contents of the Misc. Applications. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that at no stage did Revenue show that the additions were made on the basis of incriminating material(s). (B.1.1)In M.A. No.48/Lkw/2025 for assessment year 2016-17, request for amendment/rectification of order of ITAT has been made based on the claim that an addition of Rs.7,54,820/- was made on account of unexplained cash on the basis of seized document; and this issue was not adjudicated by ITAT in aforesaid consolidated order dated 24/03/2025. In M.A.No.49/Lkw/2025 for assessment year 2017-18, request for Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 3 amendment/rectification of order of ITAT has been made, based on claim that addition of Rs.6,68,656/- was made based on lease agreement of assessee’s property (seized at the time of search) and addition of Rs.2,10,000/- was made on the basis of bank statement called for during assessment proceedings. Thus, by their own admission in the M.A.; the aforesaid addition of Rs.2,10,000/- was based on materials obtained during assessment proceedings subsequent to search conducted under section 132 of the I. T. Act; and therefore, it is readily inferred that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found at the time of search under section 132 of the I. T. Act, in the premises of the assessee. (B.1.2) As regards the remaining aforesaid additions of Rs.7,54,820/- and Rs.6,68,656/-; it was not brought to attention of Bench in the course of hearing of aforesaid appeals (vide I.T.A. Nos.712 and 713/Lkw/2024) that these additions were made on the basis of incriminating materials found at the time of search. Even if a document is seized, it still needs to be shown by Revenue that the seized documents is incriminating. There is no discussion in assessment order and in impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A) that the rent agreement seized at the time of search was an incriminating document. Also, no such plea was taken at the time of hearing of the aforesaid two appeals vide I.T.A. Nos.712 & 713/Lkw/2024 in ITAT. Every seized document is not incriminating material. Also, whether a seized document is incriminating material or not, is a debatable and disputable matter, which will depend on analysis of relevant facts and circumstances, and may also require interpretation of law. On these aspects, both on facts and law, there is scope for different but legitimate views to exist, giving rise to dispute(s). Also, it may require further investigation of facts. Matters of such debatable and disputable nature cannot be decided in an order passed under section 254(2) of the I. T. Act. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 4 Moreover, a matter requiring further investigation of facts is also beyond the scope of section 254(2) of I. T. Act. As perusal of the provision of section 254(2) of the I. T. Act (reproduced below for the ease of reference) would reveal; the scope of an order passed under section 254(2) of ITAT is limited to mistake apparent from record: S.254 (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard : Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.” (B.2) In any case, since no material has been brought on record to show that the aforesaid rent agreement seized at the time of search under section 132 of the I. T. Act is an incriminating document; there is no case for any rectification/amendment of aforesaid consolidated order dated 24/03/2025. (B.2.1) It is to be further added here, that even if incriminating material was found at the time of search, to justify one particular addition in the assessment order; that in itself is no justification for making other addition(s) which is/are not based on incriminating materials. For every addition made in an assessment order passed under section 153A of the Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos.48 & 49/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years:2016-17 & 17-18 5 ITAT, there must be independent justification based on incriminating materials found at the time of search under section 132 of the I. T. Act in the case/premise of the assessee. At the very least, this is a highly disputable and debatable issue, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the I. T. Act. For this reason also, there is no case for any rectification/amendment of aforesaid consolidated order dated 24/03/2025 of ITAT, in respect of aforesaid amount of addition of Rs.2,10,00,000/- in assessment year 2017-18. (B.3) For the aforesaid reasons, and in the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these two Miscellaneous Applications filed by Revenue. Both Misc. Applications are accordingly dismissed. (C) In the result, both the Misc. Applications are dismissed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 09/12/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:09/12/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Printed from counselvise.com "