JAIPRAKASH PRAVINCHANDRA SHROFF,PUNE V. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PMT BUILDING PUNE

MA 59/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, filed by the assessee, Jaiprakash Pravinchandra Shroff, seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) due to unverified discrepancies in the financial figures reported by the assessee. The assessee pointed out specific errors in the Tribunal's earlier order, which the Tribunal acknowledged and corrected. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination of the discrepancies, as it was deemed necessary for a fair assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791518 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: V.L. JAIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.59/PUN/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1893/PUN/2024) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jaiprakash Pravinchandra Shroff, 1215/2, Pankaj, Apte Road, Pune- 411004. PAN : ACEPS9112P Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the IT Act is filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.1893/PUN/2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 filed by the Revenue. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 11-03-2025 in para 10 & 11 committed mistake apparent on the record with regard to referring the ITR balance sheet as the balance sheet. Further, Ld. AR also submitted Assessee by : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue by : Shri Gaurav Singh Date of hearing : 26.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com MA No.59/PUN/2025 2 that the Tribunal in its impugned order in para 11 committed mistake apparent on the record with regard to overlooking the fact that the figures relied upon by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC were already part of the assessment order having been used by the Assessing Officer himself. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative appearing from the side of the Revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the Tribunal order dated 11.03.2025. Ld. AR has pointed out total four errors in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which are serially discussed & decided as under :- 5. With regard to alleged mistake no.(i), (ii) & (iv) in para 10 & 11 at page 11 & 12 of the Tribunal’s order, according to Ld. AR the use of word “balance sheet” is not correct instead it should be “ITR Balance sheet”. We accept the mistake & modify the respective paras and now the same are to be read as under :- Modified para at page no.11 with regard to mistake no.(i) “10. ….. The case of the assessee was selected due to the reason that the capital balance appearing in the balance sheet for assessment year 2017-18 was only Rs.34,41,35,317/- whereas the capital balance appearing in the ITR balance sheet for assessment year 2018-19 was disclosed at Rs.77,38,41,557/-, therefore, apparently an addition of Rs 42,97,06,240/- was made in the capital. “ Printed from counselvise.com MA No.59/PUN/2025 3 Modified para at page no.12 with regard to mistake no.(ii) “10 …… The reply was considered by the Assessing Officer and the figures were further compared with that of the ITR balance sheet of subsequent assessment year i.e. for assessment year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer again found that the balance disclosed by the assessee in the ITR balance sheet for assessment year 2019-20 also does not match with the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, he was of the view that the balance sheet filled by the assessee himself-- Modified para at page no.12 with regard to mistake no.(iv) “11. In this regard, we find that admittedly the assesse himself admitted the mistake in data punching. Secondly, the assessee himself admitted that there was error in figures mentioned in the ITR balance sheet with regard to the figures of long term investments, Govt. and other securities, the amount of loans and advances, deposits etc were not correct but Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has neither enquired anything from the assesse nor called the remand report from the AO with regard to the figures claimed to be wrongly reported in the return by the assessee.” 6. With regard to alleged mistake no.(iii), we find that Ld. AR has pointed out that the figure of Rs.55,86,58,621/- which is referred by the AO in the assessment order was only considered by Ld. CIT(A) and there was no need to call for any remand report by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the matter should not be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. 7. In this regard, we find that it is true that Ld. Assessing Officer referred the figure of Rs.55,86,58,621/- in his assessment order but at the same time it was also observed by the Assessing Officer that even this figure does not match with the explanation of Printed from counselvise.com MA No.59/PUN/2025 4 the assessee. The observation of the AO in this regard is as follows :- “Therefore it is crystal clear that the assessee is trying his best to explain his capital without any locus standi. This contention further gets support from the fact that even if assessees’ explanation is accepted his personal capital as on 31.03.18 is Rupees 416846544. In the assessment year 2019-20 the assessee has declared income of Rupees 13363590 and exempt income of Rupees 400 53352 which when added to his personal capital of Rupees 416646544 the capital comes to Rupees 470063486 against which assessee has shown his capital at Rupees 558658621 ,which is also not correct.” 8. Accordingly, we find that the Assessing Officer has already doubted the figure of Rs.55,86,58,621/- and therefore there is clear cut error on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to accept the above figure as correct and draw conclusion in favour of the assessee without verifying the correctness of above figure. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of Tribunal wherein the matter was remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) by observing as under :- “Since this enquiry and verification was not made by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, & even no remand report was called for from the AO, we find force in the arguments of the Ld. DR and accordingly considering the totality of the facts of the case & without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of our above observations made in the preceding paragraphs after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” 9. From the perusal of above, we find that the Tribunal while deciding the issue has given reasons for remanding the matter, therefore it is not available for rectification u/s 254(2) of the IT Act Printed from counselvise.com MA No.59/PUN/2025 5 as the Tribunal has no powers to review its own decision. The limited power available to the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the IT Act is to correct any mistake apparent from record. Since the issue has been decided on facts, therefore, it cannot be considered as a mistake apparent from record. Hence, we find no merit in the mistake no.(iii) pointed out by Ld. AR & accordingly Miscellaneous Application on this mistake no.(iii) fails & the same is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 09th December, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "