DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE.1(3), AHMEDABAD V. M/S.AARYAVART INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

MA 112/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad, as the appellant, and M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking recall/rectification of a previous Tribunal order which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. These additions were related to unexplained entries and cash deposits, which the CIT(A) had removed, citing lack of incriminating material found during a search. The Tribunal's earlier decision upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing a Supreme Court decision that no additions could be made under section 153C without incriminating material. The Revenue's current application sought directions for reassessment under section 147, arguing that the time limit for such reassessment had expired, but this was not considered a valid ground for rectification under section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841505 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amraworld Agrico Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASEEM L THAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESHWAR P MEENA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Rectification of order
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos.107 to 112/Ahd/2024 in I.T(SS).A. Nos.35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad Vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 17-A, First Floor Pariseema Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No.AADCA4844Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 16.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The brief facts of the case are that the Revenue filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) seeking recall/rectification of the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.36/Ahd/2020 for Assessment Year 2012-13 in the case of M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The original appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal arose out of an assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act pursuant to a search action conducted in the case of Shil Mahendra Shantilal Patel Group. The Assessing Officer had made additions on account of unexplained entries and unexplained cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions holding that they were not based on any incriminating material found during the Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos. 107to112/Ahd/2024 (in IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021) DCIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years –2011-12 & 2016-17 - 2– course of search and had no nexus with the seized material referred to in the satisfaction note for invoking section 153C. 2. When the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, vide order dated 07.02.2024, upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal by holding that, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, no additions could be made in proceedings under section 153C. The Tribunal followed the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)] and held that the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits had become infructuous. 3. By way of the present Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record in the said order of the Tribunal. Instead, the Revenue has prayed that suitable directions under section 150 of the Act be issued by the Tribunal to enable initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, contending that although the additions could not survive under section 153C, reassessment proceedings ought to be permitted in view of CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2023, but the time limit for such reassessment has already expired. 4. We have carefully considered the contents of the Miscellaneous Application and the material placed on record. At the outset, we find that the scope of section 254(2) of the Act is very limited and is confined only to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. A Miscellaneous Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos. 107to112/Ahd/2024 (in IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021) DCIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years –2011-12 & 2016-17 - 3– Application cannot be used as a device either to review the order of the Tribunal or to seek fresh directions which were never part of the original adjudication. In the present case, the Revenue has not demonstrated any error, omission or mistake apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal’s order dated 07.02.2024. The Tribunal has consciously adjudicated the issue by following the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on that basis. 5. The precise issue raised by the Revenue in the present Miscellaneous Application is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amraworld Agrico Ltd. in MA No.6/Ahd/2024 (arising out of ITA No.341/Ahd/2018) for Assessment Year 2010-11, order dated 10.07.2024. In that case also, the Revenue had filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) seeking directions from the Tribunal to enable initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act after the Tribunal had dismissed the Department’s appeal by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal categorically held that such a prayer is wholly outside the scope of section 254(2) of the Act and that directions cannot be sought in the guise of rectification when no mistake apparent from the record has been pointed out. The Tribunal further held that non-issuance of directions for reassessment does not constitute any mistake in the order of the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos. 107to112/Ahd/2024 (in IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021) DCIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years –2011-12 & 2016-17 - 4– 6. Applying the same reasoning to the facts of the present case, we find that the Revenue is attempting to seek a fresh direction from the Tribunal for initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 150 of the Act, which is clearly impermissible in proceedings under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal cannot supplement or modify its concluded order by issuing such directions, especially when the original order does not suffer from any apparent mistake. The lapse of limitation for reassessment, as pleaded by the Revenue, cannot be a ground for invoking the rectification jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 7. In view of the above discussion, and respectfully following the coordinate bench decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in Dy. CIT v. Amraworld Agrico Ltd., MA No.6/Ahd/2024, order dated 10.07.2024, we hold that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Income Tax Department is not maintainable and is devoid of any merit. 8. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 26/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/02/2026 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos. 107to112/Ahd/2024 (in IT(SS)A Nos. 35 to 39/Ahd/2020 & 69/Ahd/2021) DCIT vs. M/s. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years –2011-12 & 2016-17 - 5– 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 23.02.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 24.02.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .02.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 26.02.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 26.02.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 26.02.2026 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 "