LUV RANJAN,GHAZIABAD V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

MA 382/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Luv Ranjan, the appellant, who sought to recall an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The original dispute arose from a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which led to the discovery of documents related to illegal betting. The Assessing Officer, after the operation, assessed Ranjan's income significantly higher than declared, attributing the difference to undisclosed income from betting on cricket matches. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Ranjan and the revenue, leading to this application for recall by Ranjan, which was based on the claim that a relevant case law was not considered in the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398315 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT vs Yograj Arora ITA No. 2440/Del/2022 dated 07-11-2023, Reliance Petro Telecom Limited in Civil Appeal No.7110 and 7112 of 2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.382/Del/2024 ITA no.3046/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Ranjan R-11/40,Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad U.P.201002 PAN No. AHGPR9364K Vs DCIT(Central Circle)-03 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04/06/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This miscellaneous application has moved by the assessee to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 19-08-2024 in ITA No.3046/Del/2022 pertaining to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The contention of the assessee is that assessee has taken the two grounds in the appeal which was adjudicated by the tribunal but the case law relied by the assessee has not been considered. Ld. AR was also argued that no cash was seized during the search operation from the premises of the assessee. 2 As per the provision of the 69 A of Income Tax Act(referred in short “the Act”) the onus was on the department to establish that the assessee was found the owner of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which were not recorded in the books of accounts by the assessee. 3.The assessee has taken the ground no 1 & 2 in appeal as under: Ground No. 1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and bad in law. Ground No.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 12,12,425/- by holding the same to be on account of undisclosed income/profits from betting on cricket matches. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In the application the assessee has stated that non considering the judgment is a mistake apparent from the record and is amenable to rectification u/s 254 clause (2) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that mistake may be rectified and the appeal be fixed for hearing. Reliance has placed on the following judgment: (i) DCIT vs Yograj Arora ITA No. 2440/Del/2022 dated 07-11- 2023 3 5.Brief facts and the back ground of the case are that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring income of Rs 57,06,080/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 28-11-2018. The assessee also covered in operation u/s 132 of the Act. In the response of the notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee has filed the return of income declaring the income of Rs 40,46,470/-. During the search loose documents related to assessee relating to illegal betting recovered from the office premise of Sh. Luv Ranjan. The assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 153 A of the Act at income of Rs 4,47,40,855/-. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 22-10-2022 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both filed the separate appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed by the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR strongly objected the application and submitted that under Section 254(2) of the Act the apparent mistake of the fact may be rectified, but in this case the assessee wants to review the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible as per law. 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the miscellaneous application and the submissions of the 4 Counsel. The aforesaid decision relied by the assessee does not help the assessee. The appeals of the assessee and revenue were decided after considering the submission made by the parties. In our considered view what the Counsel is asking us, to review our own order in the garb of the provisions of section 254 (2) of the Act, this Tribunal does not have any power to review its own order, therefore, we do not find any merit in this miscellaneous application of the assessee and the same is liable to be dismissed. We draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Telecom Limited in Civil Appeal No.7110 and 7112 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 06.09.2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. If the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its 5 earlier order dated 06.09.2013 which has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. 5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction 6 upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The original orders passed by the ITAT dated 06.09.2013 passed in the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue are hereby restored.” 6. Respectfully following the above, miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7 7. In the result, the captioned Mis. Application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:-04.06.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "