MILAN SEVANTILAL SHETH,SURAT V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, NEW DELHI

MA 27/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessee, Milan Sevantilal Sheth, who filed a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, which was scrutinized, leading to an addition of Rs.85,60,125 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the sale of jewelry. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, which was later challenged and dismissed by the Tribunal. The assessee's subsequent MA sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that the Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence and had based its decision on assumptions. However, the Tribunal found no mistake in its earlier decision, emphasizing that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the creditworthiness of the donor or the genuineness of the 'Will' under which the assets were received.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473437 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Laxmi Prasad Lahkar, CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., Mukesh Nanubhai Desai vs. CIT, Durga Prasad More vs. CIT, Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., Niranjan & Co. Ltd. vs. ITAT, Popular Engineering Co. vs. ITAT, Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: K. GOPAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Cost of acquisition; Onus to prove; Gift; Capital Gains; Rectification of order; Source of fund; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 254(2); 68; 13; 10

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.27/SRT/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.131/SRT/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Milan Sevantilal Sheth, B-203, Time Luxuria, Vesu – Abhva Road, Near Blossom, B/s Greenland Bungalow, Surat – 395007 Vs. The ITO, Ward – 1(3)(7), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BJHPS3618F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri K. Gopal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 03/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This Miscellaneous Application (in short, ‘MA’) is filed by the assessee for seeking rectification within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) of the Tribunal order in ITA No.131/SRT/2024 dated 24.04.2024 for assessment years (AY) 2017-18. 2. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the return of income filed by the assessee on 08.10.2017 for AY.2017-18 was taken up for scrutiny where in the order u/s 143(3) dated 23.12.2019, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) added Rs.85,60,125/- u/s 68 of the Act. The addition was in respect of sale of jewellery of Rs.85,60,125/- 2 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth against which assessee had claimed cost of acquisition of Rs.84,57,404/- and offered net capital gain of Rs.1,02,721/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed in ITA No.131/SRT/2024, dated 24.04.2024. The appellant submitted that the expression ‘plausible’ used in the order of CIT(A) leads to conclusion that the AO and CIT(A) upheld the addition based on assumptions and presumptions. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without appreciating the same. It is also submitted that the Tribunal doubted the manner of receipt of the assets by way of ‘Will’ of grandmother dated 15.01.1999. The Bench has not doubted sale of the assets but creditworthiness of the donor. Any doubt about ‘Will’ and ‘Creditworthiness’ of the donor will not justify addition in the hands of the applicant. Thus, observation of the Tribunal represents a mistake apparent on record. It was also submitted that appellant had filed various documentary evidence such as, trading and profit and loss account, purchase memo of purchaser, bank statement of the applicant and the purchaser; but without doubting the said evidence, the Bench has doubted creditworthiness of the donor and the manner in which the assets were receipt by the applicant by holding that the said ‘Will’ deed was concocted. The appellant also stated that different ages mentioned in the ‘Will’, being “75 years” and “over 70 years” is not a discrepancy. The details of other assets gifted to other children was not substantiated with documentary evidence and the Tribunal applied theory of 3 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth ‘human probability’ determining the genuineness of the documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition due to inability by applicant to produce documentary evidence of third party. The ld. AR relied on decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Laxmi Prasad Lahkar, 220 ITR 100. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) submitted that the scope of sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act is limited. Under the said proviso, only rectification of mistake apparent from record is permissible and not review of the order already passed. He submitted that various inconsistencies have been pointed out in the ‘Will’ submitted by the assessee before the revenue authorities and ITAT. The ITAT has agreed with the concurrent finding of the AO and CIT(A) that the impugned ‘Will” deed was concocted and could not be relied upon. He submitted that admitting the MA would be to revisit the entire order which is not permissible. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC). 4. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions relied upon by both parties. The undisputed fact about the case is that the AO made addition of Rs.85,60,125/- u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the entire sale consideration shown in the computation of income under the head capital gain was unexplained cash credit. The AO has considered the ‘Will’ of the grandmother and contentions of the assessee at para 3.5 of the assessment order before holding that 4 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth explanation of the assessee was not satisfactory. The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal vide discussion at para 7 to 7.1.4 (pages 9 to 13) of the appellate order. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had filed paper book and made submissions which were duly considered and the appeal was dismissed by an elaborate order. For ready reference, the relevant part of the order of the ITAT is reproduced below: “8. We have heard the Ld. AR of the appellant and Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue. We have also carefully perused the orders passed by the lower authorities and have gone through the decisions relied upon by both parties. We have also gone through the provisions of section 68 of the Act, which have been invoked by AO to treat the entire sale consideration shown in the computation of the long-term capital gain on sale of jewellery and diamonds worth Rs. 85,60,125/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was added by the AO in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the nature and source of the jewellery and diamonds reportedly received by the appellant from his grandmother, which have been sold subsequently to receive the sale consideration of Rs. 85,60,125/-, is duly explained by the appellant. In the paper book, the Ld. AR has submitted the purchase memo received from M/s Swastic Corporation and sales bills issued to M/s HS Impex for sale of diamonds along with their ledger accounts. The Ld. AR also submitted the bank statements reflecting payments received from M/s. Swastic Corporation and M/s HS Impex. In order to prove effectuation of these sales, the appellant had submitted copy of the “Will” dated 15.01.1999 of his grandmother, Smt. Putliben Kalidas Seth, and has stated that the gold jewellery and diamonds of 186.86 carat received by him in 1999 by way of the will belonged to his grandmother. The Ld. AR has also relied on the decision in the case of Mukesh Nanubhai Desai (supra), where it was held that additions based on mere suspicion without any evidence on record could not be sustained. 9. We have carefully perused the “Will and Testament” and its English translation enclosed in the paper book at page Nos. 11 to 16. Since the source of acquisition claimed by the appellant is the “Will” of his grandmother, Smt. Putliben Kalidas Seth, let us reproduce it for ready reference and proper appreciation of the facts. The “Will” is dated 15.01.1999 and Smt. Putliben Kalidas Seth passed away after one year on 10.02.2000. The “Will” reads as under: “WILL AND TESTAMENT Samvat 2055 & Posh Vad Thirteenth day of Friday, the 15th day of the month of January, the English day of the year 1999. 5 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth I, PUTLIBEN KALIDAS SETH, Age about 75 years, Occupation: Housework, Caste Hindu, Residing at: 13, Vimalnath Society, Mitakhali Ahmedabad, today make my last and final will and I hereby declare same to all those connected to me. I am over 70 years old. I am mentally fit &healthy. I can understand what is good and bad for myself. I do not trust my body and am not sure when this body will end. I have therefore make this my last will and testament to the intent that there should be no quarrel or strife between my heirs regarding my property in future, that after my death my immovable property may be disposed of according to my wishes as per will. Although I have not executed any other will or testament or any such writing but if any such will or testament or any such writing later on found, I hereby revoke all said will and testament and I order my property to be disposed of as decreed by me in this will. My Husband Shri. Kalidas Seth Passed away 9 (nine) years ago. I have four sons and two daughters. All my sons are married and all of them are happily settled with their own families. I have given to all my daughters whatever me and my husband wanted to give them in their hard times and on various occasion and festivals. So I don't want to bequeath anything to my daughters in my last will and testament. I have also given on various occastions and festivals whatever I wanted to give to all my three sons, except Sevantilal. So now in my last will I wanted to bequeath the following properties only to my son Sevantilal and his son Milan Seth (who is my grandson). I have also given whatever I wanted to give on various occastions and festivals to Sevantilal's second son Shenik and daughter. I want to dispose of my movable immovable property by this will. The details of that property are as follows – 1) I transfer all my shares in the name of my son Seventilal Kalidas Seth. The details of shares owned by me are as follows- Bajaj Hindu Swam Sugar Limited G.M.D.C. State Bank of India. New India Life Insurance. Piccadilly Sugars. 2) I bequeath all my current property and current debts in the name of my son: Sevantilal Kalidas Seth. The details of which are as follows- Out of my current property Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash. 6 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth Balance in all my Bank Accounts. 3) All the gold ornaments (rings, bangles, necklaces etc.), gold bar weighing about 738 grams and all the gold ornaments belonging to me, I wish to bequeath to my grandson Milan Sevantilal Seth. 4) I have a total of 187 Carats of Diamonds which I wish to give to my Grandson Milan Sevantilal Seth. I have made this will out of my own intention and wish. So that after my death, my other heirs should not oppose this will in any way and if they do then they will be eliminated and so they will have to co- operate in all ways to get this Will executed. This is my last will and testament with above particulars that I have made out of my natural love and affection, with stable state of my mind and body, without any drugs in an undisturbed condition, without any pressure of any kind from any person, duly read and got it read, duly understanding with my wish and in the presence of two witnesses making this Will which is binding on every one including me and my all the descendants, heirs, appurtenances, assignees etc. ………” 10. It is clear from a bare reading of the “Will” that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in it. Firstly, the age of the testator is stated to be “75 years” in para 1 whereas it is “over 70 years” in para 2. The testator unlikely to make such glaring mistake when she states that she was “mentally fit and healthy” and that she has not executed any other will or testament. Though she had 4 sons and 2 daughters, she has not given anything to her 3 sons and 2 daughters in this “Will” by stating that she had earlier given to all other daughters and sons (except father of the assessee) whatever she and her husband wanted during their hard times as well as on various occasions and festivals. However, no details regarding the gifted assets or their values to other children have been specified, unlike the case of the appellant. She has gifted all her shares and other properties at Sl. Nos.1 and 2 of the “Will” to her son Sevantilal. The value of assets given to the father of assessee is also not high. She has ,however, gifted gold ornament weighing about 738 grams and 187 carats of diamonds to her grandson, Milan Sevantilal Seth (appellant herewith). It is beyond the realm of human probability that she gifted/ gave away such high value gold jewellery and diamonds to her grandson but there is no evidence of any such gift to her own children (3 sons & 2 daughters). There are also no supporting documents to prove the source of the aforesaid assets, since she is a housewife with no regular source of income. Also, there is no independent evidence apart from the “Will” which can prove that she was in possession of the impugned assets at the time of creation of the will. The “Will” also does not mention details of the other properties supposedly given to her other children (three sons and two daughters), making the content of the will appear concocted. It is also not clear as to why the receipt of gold jewellery and diamonds of such high value was never shown either in the 7 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth Income-tax returns or the Wealth-tax returns of the assessee for a very long period of 17 years upto AY 2017-18. Neither any evidence of these valuables in the income-tax details of the grandmother has been produced before us. The reasons for not showing such high value of the assets could not be satisfactorily explained by the Ld. AR. No corroborative evidence has been furnished by the Ld. AR to support the case of the appellant. Shares have also been gifted but no details regarding the quantity and value of shares is mentioned. No DMAT account or any evidence from Stock Exchange was produced to support the “Will”. Another very important fact is absence of “probated will” in this case. On a specific question by the Bench, the Ld. AR fairly admitted that there is no probate in the present case. Probate is a legal process of proving a will in a Court and confirming its validity. In absence of the probate and existence of overwhelming surrounding circumstances discussed above, the explanation of the appellant regarding the nature and source of the impugned gold jewellery and diamonds is not prima facie satisfactory. In view of the facts discussed above, we agree with the concurrent findings of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) that the said will deed is concocted and cannot be relied upon. 11. Let us now discuss whether the ratio of the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case of Mukesh Nanubhai Desai (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case relied upon, the assessee had declared long- term capital gains from share transactions which was claimed as exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act. The facts of the present case are totally different because it is not a case of exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to prove the genuineness of the “Will” and its content by furnishing corroborative and supporting evidences. Even the “Will” was not probated. Further, the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the other three sons and two daughters were actually given assets of such high value as had been given to the appellant (grandson). The appellant has not been able to furnish any balance sheet or wealth tax return of self and his grandmother to prove the existence of the given jewellery and diamonds. 12. At this juncture, it would be apt to state that the strict rule of evidence is not applicable to Income-tax proceedings and surrounding circumstances are material in determining the taxability of an event. Application of the theory of human probability to particular facts and circumstances is well recognised in the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no reason why these principles should not be applicable to the case of the appellant. If such tests are applied to the facts of the present case, as elaborated above, it would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed in establishing its claim regarding the nature and source of acquisition of jewellery and diamonds from his grandmother. The feeble attempt to prove the non-existent fact has been duly unearthed by the AO and rightly upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). We find no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities. 8 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth 13. The AO has applied the provisions of section 68 of the Act to tax the sale consideration claimed to have been received by the appellant from sale of gold ornament and diamonds, which were given to him by her late grandmother by way of a will. Before deciding the issue, it would be proper to reproduce and discuss the provisions of section 68, which reads as under: “Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: 35[Provided that where the sum so credited consists of loan or borrowing or any such amount, by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless,— (a) the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the AO aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that] where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the AO aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: 36[Provided also] that nothing contained in the first proviso 37[or second proviso] shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 14. A bare reading of section 68 of the Act reposes in the AO the jurisdiction to enquire from the assessee the nature and source of the sum credited in his books of account. If the explanation given by the assessee is 9 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth found not to be satisfactory, further inquiries can be made by the AO himself, both in regard to the nature and source of the income credited by the assessee in the books of account. The section accords statutory recognition to the principle that cash credits which are not satisfactorily explained, or not at all explained, might be assessed to be tax as income of the assessee. The onus of proving source of sum found to have been received by the assessee is on the assessee. It is for the assessee to prove that even if cash credit represents income, it is income from a source which has been already taxed. The burden to prove the cash credit and genuineness of transaction lies on the assessee, who in order to discharge the onus must prove (i) the identity of the creditors, (ii) creditworthiness or the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. Only when all the above three ingredients are prima facie and cumulatively established, the Department is required to undertake further exercises. As to how the onus can be discharged would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘the assessee offers no explanation” used in section 68 of the Act means assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T. Mohanakala, (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). The opinion of the AO is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material on record. Application of mind is sine qua non for forming the opinion. The burden is on the assessee to take the plea that, even if the explanation is not acceptable, the material and the attending circumstances available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature. Where the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. Reliance may be placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). The statute puts the onus on the assessee to offer a lucid, reasonable and acceptable explanation before the AO and thereafter the AO should form an opinion accepting or rejecting the explanation based upon appreciation of facts/materials and other attending circumstances. The opinion of the AO is required to be formed objectively based on the material available on record. In the present case, the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the donor has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. It is well established that identity of the creditor, creditworthiness or capacity of the creditor to advance the money and genuineness of the transactions are the three ingredients which are required to be cumulatively satisfied by the assessee to escape the mischief, the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee has not been able to properly explain and satisfy the aforesaid conditions so as to discharge the onus cast on it. The creditworthiness of the will maker and genuineness of the transaction has not been proved for the reasons that assessee’s grandmother was a housewife with no regular sources of income. No evidences have been produced to show that she was in possession of so 10 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth many assets to give to the appellant and her six children. The Will deed appears to be a concocted story as no specific details/quantification is mentioned in it of the assets given to other children. Shares have also been gifted but no details regarding the quantity and value of shares is mentioned. No DMAT account or any evidence from Stock Exchange was produced to support the Will. There is also inordinate and intentional delay in submission of the details. As stated earlier, the Will was made in January, 1999 but no Income-tax or Wealth-tax details were furnished for 17 years long upto 2017- 18 or for the prior period to prove the existence of the gold jewellery and diamonds. The officially authenticated copy of a probated will is not available with the appellant. In view of the above factual and statutory positions and the decisions cited supra, we hold that the onus with regard to creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions has not been discharged satisfactorily as mandated in section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is sustained and the grounds are dismissed.” 5. It is clear from above that all facts of the case and rival submissions made by the both parties were duly considered by the ITAT and the decision was given thereafter. The ld. AR has submitted that the expression ‘plausible’ used by the AO and CIT(A) leads to conclusion that addition was based on assumptions and presumptions. Such a claim is not liable to be accepted because the decision has to be seen in its entirety and not based on ‘a word’ or ‘a few words’ picked up from the order. As stated earlier, after considering all facts, the decision was arrived at. In any case, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, the meaning ‘plausible’ is “Conceivably true or successful; possibly correct or even likely; REASONABLE”. Therefore, assigning a meaning that the conclusion was based on presumptions and assumptions is not correct. Further, appellant has submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in applying theory of ‘Human probability’. Such a contention is also not correct because the theory of ‘Human probability’ has been recognized even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Durga Prasad More vs. CIT, 82 ITR 540 (SC) and 11 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC). The human probabilities principle is a standard of proof used in Income-tax Law. It is a concept that recognizes that in some situations, it is not possible to provide conclusive evidence to prove a case, but rather a judgment must be made on probabilities and common sense. Hence, contention of the ld. AR is not tenable. There is no reason as to why application of this well-recognized principle is a mistake apparent from record. 5.1 The ld. Sr. DR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has stated that while considering application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is not required to revisit its original order and go into details on merits and completely recalled its order as powers under provision of section 254(2) are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that an error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need a long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its correctness. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the 12 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth records. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Niranjan & Co. Ltd. vs. ITAT, 122 ITR 519 (Cal.) held that u/s 254(2), the Tribunal has jurisdiction only to rectify mistakes apparent from record that are brought to its notice. It cannot review its earlier order. It cannot go into the merits of the appeal again and come to a finding that the order was sound even on the basis of materials sought to be relied on. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Popular Engineering Co. vs. ITAT, 248 ITR 577 held that absence of adequate reasons in an order passed u/s 254(1) cannot per se be regarded as a mistake apparent within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Likewise, the possibility of forming a different opinion than the one expressed in the order passed u/s 254(1) cannot be treated as a ground for entertaining an application u/s 254(2). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT, (1998) 100 Taxman 573 (Del.) held that the foundation for exercise of jurisdiction lies in the rectification of a mistake apparent from record which object is ensured by amending the order passed by the Tribunal. The said power does not, however, contemplate a re-hearing of appeal for disposal. Doing so would obliterate the distinction between power to rectify mistakes and the power to review the order made by the Tribunal. In the present case, the appellant is canvassing for review of the order made by the Tribunal and not rectify any mistakes apparent from record. In view of the facts discussed above and the authoritative precedent, we do not find any merit in the MA filed by the assessee. The appellant is seeking revisit of finding 13 MA No.27/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Milan Sevantilal Sheth without specifying mistake which may be classified as mistake apparent on record. Therefore, we do not find any mistake which could be said to be apparent within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, MA is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 03/01/2025 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "