PODDAR RENAISSANCE REALITY PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS IMPERIAL RENAISSAICE RENIASANCE REALITY PVT. LTD),MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI

MA 104/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.), which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The original dispute centered on the substantive addition of 5.15 crore as unexplained investment in two flats, which was initially a protective addition in the assessee's hands but was later converted to a substantive addition. The assessee argued that this addition should not have been made substantively after it was already confirmed in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims and that the application sought a review rather than a rectification of a mistake.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822859 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Dharmichand Jain v. Dy. CIT (Mumbai)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHABH MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized; Bogus purchase; Rectification of order; Bogus
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2045/MUM/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050. Vs. DCIT, CC-7(4), Room No. 659, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAGCP 2657 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rushabh Mehta Revenue by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking recall of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ( in short ‘the Tribunal’) passed in appeal of the Revenue having ITA No. 2045/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2012-13. Printed from counselvise.com 2. The assessee, by way of the present Miscellaneous Application, seeks rectification of paragraphs 6 and 6.1 of the Tribunal’s order on the ground that the addition of sustained on a substantive basis in its hands, despite the same addition having already been made and confirmed on a substantive basis in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for Assessment Year 2012–13. 2.1 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of ₹5.15 crore represented alleged unexplained investment in two flats situated at Tamarisk CHS Ltd., Bandra (W), Mumbai. According to him, the said addition was originally made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., while the corresponding the assessee’s case was only protective. It was contended that once the substantive addition has attained finality in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., the protective addition in the hands of the assessee could not have been converted into a su was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Dharmichand Jain v. Dy. CIT (Mumbai). The assessee filed a factual submission which is reproduced as under: “4. In this regard, we wish to following facts : ………………………. On going through the assessment order, it may be observed that Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. e, by way of the present Miscellaneous Application, seeks rectification of paragraphs 6 and 6.1 of the Tribunal’s order on the ground that the addition of ₹5.15 crore has been erroneously sustained on a substantive basis in its hands, despite the same tion having already been made and confirmed on a substantive basis in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for Assessment Year The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of 5.15 crore represented alleged unexplained investment in two flats situated at Tamarisk CHS Ltd., Bandra (W), Mumbai. According to him, the said addition was originally made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., while the corresponding the assessee’s case was only protective. It was contended that once the substantive addition has attained finality in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., the protective addition in the hands of the assessee could not have been converted into a substantive addition. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Dharmichand Jain v. Dy. CIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 519 The assessee filed a factual submission which is reproduced as under: In this regard, we wish to bring to Your Honour's attention to the following facts : - ………………………. On going through the assessment order, it may be observed that Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 2 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 e, by way of the present Miscellaneous Application, seeks rectification of paragraphs 6 and 6.1 of the Tribunal’s order 5.15 crore has been erroneously sustained on a substantive basis in its hands, despite the same tion having already been made and confirmed on a substantive basis in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for Assessment Year The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of 5.15 crore represented alleged unexplained investment in two flats situated at Tamarisk CHS Ltd., Bandra (W), Mumbai. According to him, the said addition was originally made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., while the corresponding addition in the assessee’s case was only protective. It was contended that once the substantive addition has attained finality in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., the protective addition in the hands of the assessee bstantive addition. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Basant [2023] 146 taxmann.com 519 The assessee filed a factual submission which is bring to Your Honour's attention to the On going through the assessment order, it may be observed that Printed from counselvise.com c) Addition of Rs. 5,15,00,000/ of assessment of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd for A.Y. 2012 basis u/s 69 of the Act and its assessment order was also placed on record in the Paper Book at page no. 123 to 212. This was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.12.2017 and by Hon'ble ITAT bearing ITA No. 1547/Mum/2018 vide ord d) The addition of Rs. 5,15,00,000/ in the assessment order was protective only and since the substantive addition is also confirmed in the hands of M/s. Loha Ispat Ltd. by Id. CIT(A) as well as Hon'ble I need not have been changed from protective to substantive by the Hon'ble ITAT. e) The Hon'ble ITAT has incorrectly noted at para 6.1 of the order that no addition has been made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for the unexplained this payment was purportedly explained by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases. f) It is also incorrectly stated at para 6.2 of the order that the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of payment for the sum of Rs. 5 crore with credible documentary evidence. In regards to the same we wish to state that the assessee provided sufficient details in form of 'Form 2' filed before ROC placed on recor Paper Book at page no. 237 to 241 which clarifies that the assessee company has issued 32,18,750 shares to M/s Loha Ispat Ltd having face value of Rs. 10 per share apart from premium of Rs. 6 per share. Accordingly, total share capital raised from accounted at Rs. 5,15,00,000/ (having fave value of Rs. 10 per share) and share premium of Rs. 1,93,12,500 (having premium of Rs. 6 per share). 3. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that group entity of the Lodha Ispat Group. flats bearing no, 501 and 601 at Tamarisk CHS Ltd., Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai registered agreement at Rs.10 crores. the case of a key managerial person of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., documents evidencing cash payment of commission in relation to Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. c) Addition of Rs. 5,15,00,000/- was already made during the course of assessment of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd for A.Y. 2012-13 basis u/s 69 of the Act and its assessment order was also placed on record in the Paper Book at page no. 123 to 212. This was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.12.2017 and by Hon'ble ITAT bearing ITA No. 1547/Mum/2018 vide order dated 18.01.2022. d) The addition of Rs. 5,15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order was protective only and since the substantive addition is also confirmed in the hands of M/s. Loha Ispat Ltd. by Id. CIT(A) as well as Hon'ble ITAT; nature of addition need not have been changed from protective to substantive by the e) The Hon'ble ITAT has incorrectly noted at para 6.1 of the order that no addition has been made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for the unexplained investment of ₹5.15 crore, even though the source of this payment was purportedly explained by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases. f) It is also incorrectly stated at para 6.2 of the order that the essee has failed to substantiate the source of payment for the sum of Rs. 5 crore with credible documentary evidence. In regards to the same we wish to state that the assessee provided sufficient details in form of 'Form 2' filed before ROC placed on recor Paper Book at page no. 237 to 241 which clarifies that the assessee company has issued 32,18,750 shares to M/s Loha Ispat Ltd having face value of Rs. 10 per share apart from premium of Rs. 6 per share. Accordingly, total share capital raised from M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. was accounted at Rs. 5,15,00,000/- i.e. share capital of Rs. 3,21,87,500 (having fave value of Rs. 10 per share) and share premium of Rs. 1,93,12,500 (having premium of Rs. 6 per share).” The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a group entity of the Lodha Ispat Group. The assessee purchased flats bearing no, 501 and 601 at Tamarisk CHS Ltd., Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai, consideration of which was reported in registered agreement at Rs.10 crores. During a search conducted in the case of a key managerial person of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., documents evidencing cash payment of commission in relation to Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 3 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 was already made during the course 13 on substantive basis u/s 69 of the Act and its assessment order was also placed on record in the Paper Book at page no. 123 to 212. This was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.12.2017 and by Hon'ble er dated 18.01.2022. made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order was protective only and since the substantive addition is also confirmed in the hands of M/s. Loha TAT; nature of addition need not have been changed from protective to substantive by the e) The Hon'ble ITAT has incorrectly noted at para 6.1 of the order that no addition has been made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for 5.15 crore, even though the source of this payment was purportedly explained by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases. f) It is also incorrectly stated at para 6.2 of the order that the essee has failed to substantiate the source of payment for the sum of Rs. 5 crore with credible documentary evidence. In regards to the same we wish to state that the assessee provided sufficient details in form of 'Form 2' filed before ROC placed on record in the Paper Book at page no. 237 to 241 which clarifies that the assessee company has issued 32,18,750 shares to M/s Loha Ispat Ltd having face value of Rs. 10 per share apart from premium of Rs. 6 per share. M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. was i.e. share capital of Rs. 3,21,87,500 (having fave value of Rs. 10 per share) and share premium of Rs. the assessee is a The assessee purchased 2 flats bearing no, 501 and 601 at Tamarisk CHS Ltd., Carter Road, , consideration of which was reported in During a search conducted in the case of a key managerial person of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., documents evidencing cash payment of commission in relation to Printed from counselvise.com the purchase of two flats were seized. it is a debit note and contains th 15,00,000/- calculated @ 1% on the actual purchase price of these two flats. Accordingly, from the said commission amount and rate, it was worked out that the total value of the flats so purchased was at Rs. 15,00,00,000/ statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act Poddar, the managing director of M/s. Loha Ispat Ltd. admitted that while amount of ₹5 crore was paid in ca purchases, and the said undisclosed income offered in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. Consequently, the Assessing Officer of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. made a substantive addition of ₹5 crore along with commi position is not in dispute. 4. During the assessment proceedings in the assessee’s case, it was explained that the cash so generated by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. was utilised towards subscription of share capital of the assessee company, pursuant to which equity shares were issued at face value and premium aggregating to contended that no payment was made by it towards the purchase of the flats and, in fact has issued equity shares instead of any payment which are duly recorded in its books of account. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. the purchase of two flats were seized. The said finding revealed that it is a debit note and contains the amount of commission of Rs. calculated @ 1% on the actual purchase price of these Accordingly, from the said commission amount and rate, it was worked out that the total value of the flats so purchased was at Rs. 15,00,00,000/-. Based on such seized material and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act Poddar, the managing director of M/s. Loha Ispat Ltd. admitted that while ₹10 crore was paid by cheque, the balance 5 crore was paid in cash, generated from non purchases, and the said undisclosed income of Rs. 5.15 crores offered in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. Consequently, the Assessing Officer of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. made a substantive 5 crore along with commission thereon. This factual position is not in dispute. During the assessment proceedings in the assessee’s case, it was explained that the cash so generated by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. was utilised towards subscription of share capital of the assessee ny, pursuant to which equity shares were issued at face value and premium aggregating to ₹5.15 crore. The assessee contended that no payment was made by it towards the purchase of , in fact has issued equity shares instead of any are duly recorded in its books of account. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 4 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 The said finding revealed that e amount of commission of Rs. calculated @ 1% on the actual purchase price of these Accordingly, from the said commission amount and rate, it was worked out that the total value of the flats so purchased was sed on such seized material and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act Shri Rajesh Poddar, the managing director of M/s. Loha Ispat Ltd., it was 10 crore was paid by cheque, the balance sh, generated from non-genuine of Rs. 5.15 crores was offered in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. Consequently, the Assessing Officer of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. made a substantive ssion thereon. This factual During the assessment proceedings in the assessee’s case, it was explained that the cash so generated by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. was utilised towards subscription of share capital of the assessee ny, pursuant to which equity shares were issued at face 5.15 crore. The assessee contended that no payment was made by it towards the purchase of , in fact has issued equity shares instead of any are duly recorded in its books of account. Relying Printed from counselvise.com on this explanation, the AO made addition of Rs. 5.15 crores on substantive basis in hands of Loha Ispat ltd addition on protective basis. 5. This explanation, however, was not accepted by the Tribunal in the original appellate proceedings. After examining the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source and nature of transaction in its hands and accordingly sustained the addition of ₹5.15 crore on a substantive basis observing as under: “6. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and examining the material placed on record, we fin a search operation conducted at the premises of the director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., certain documents were seized indicating the payment of commission or brokerage at the rate of 1%. This commission was calculated to amount to 15 lakh, as explicitly stated in the documents. Based on this, the search team inferred the purchase price to be 15 crore. The director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. admitted during questioning that this 1% commission was paid in connection with the purchase of two flats for t M/s Poddar Renaissance Realty Pvt. Ltd. It was revealed that the registered sale deed reflected a consideration of only f10 crore, while the remaining 75 crore and the f15 lakh commission were paid in cash. The director further stated that the cash payments were sourced from funds generated through cheques issued for bogus purchases recorded in the books of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. It is pertinent to note, however, that the seized documents do not conclusively establish the source of the cas the funds originated from bogus purchases was based solely on the statements of the director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. and lacked corroborative documentary evidence. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. on this explanation, the AO made addition of Rs. 5.15 crores on asis in hands of Loha Ispat ltd, whereas made addition on protective basis. This explanation, however, was not accepted by the Tribunal in the original appellate proceedings. After examining the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source and nature of transaction in its hands and accordingly sustained the addition of 5.15 crore on a substantive basis in the hands of the “6. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and examining the material placed on record, we find that during a search operation conducted at the premises of the director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., certain documents were seized indicating the payment of commission or brokerage at the rate of 1%. This commission was calculated to amount to 15 plicitly stated in the documents. Based on this, the search team inferred the purchase price to be 15 crore. The director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. admitted during questioning that this 1% commission was paid in connection with the purchase of two flats for the assessee company, M/s Poddar Renaissance Realty Pvt. Ltd. It was revealed that the registered sale deed reflected a consideration of only f10 crore, while the remaining 75 crore and the f15 lakh commission were paid in cash. The director further stated that the cash payments were sourced from funds generated through cheques issued for bogus purchases recorded in the books of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. It is pertinent to note, however, that the seized documents do not conclusively establish the source of the cash payment for the two flats. The claim that the funds originated from bogus purchases was based solely on the statements of the director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. and lacked corroborative documentary evidence. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 5 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 on this explanation, the AO made addition of Rs. 5.15 crores on , whereas made This explanation, however, was not accepted by the Tribunal in the original appellate proceedings. After examining the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily establish the source and nature of the transaction in its hands and accordingly sustained the addition of in the hands of the assessee “6. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and d that during a search operation conducted at the premises of the director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., certain documents were seized indicating the payment of commission or brokerage at the rate of 1%. This commission was calculated to amount to 15 plicitly stated in the documents. Based on this, the search team inferred the purchase price to be 15 crore. The director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. admitted during questioning that this 1% commission was paid in connection he assessee company, M/s Poddar Renaissance Realty Pvt. Ltd. It was revealed that the registered sale deed reflected a consideration of only f10 crore, while the remaining 75 crore and the f15 lakh commission were paid in cash. The director further stated that the cash payments were sourced from funds generated through cheques issued for bogus purchases recorded in the books of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. It is pertinent to note, however, that the seized documents do not conclusively establish the h payment for the two flats. The claim that the funds originated from bogus purchases was based solely on the statements of the director of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. and Printed from counselvise.com 6.1 Given these facts, the AO observed that the u investment of 75.15 crore must be attributed to the assessee. The purchase consideration of 710 crore, which was reflected in the registered sale deed, has been duly accounted for in the books of the assessee. However, no addition has been made for the unexplained investment of 75.15 crore, even though the source of this payment was purportedly explained by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases. Notably, the se documents did not contain any evidence to substantiate the flow of such funds. Under these circumstances, irrespective of whether the Assessing Officer made additions for undisclosed income in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., the onus remains squarely explain the source of the unexplained investment under the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For reference, Section 69 states: Unexplained investments. 69. Where in the financial year immediately assessment vear the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year.\" 6. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record 7. In the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee essentially contends that the Tribunal has committed recording that no addition was made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. and in holding that the source of cash was not explained. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. 6.1 Given these facts, the AO observed that the u investment of 75.15 crore must be attributed to the assessee. The purchase consideration of 710 crore, which was reflected in the registered sale deed, has been duly accounted for in the books of the assessee. However, no addition has been made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for the unexplained investment of 75.15 crore, even though the source of this payment was purportedly explained by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases. Notably, the se documents did not contain any evidence to substantiate the flow of such funds. Under these circumstances, irrespective of whether the Assessing Officer made additions for undisclosed income in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., the onus remains squarely on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of the unexplained investment under the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For reference, Section 69 states: Unexplained investments. 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment vear the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year.\" We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee essentially contends that the Tribunal has committed recording that no addition was made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. and in holding that the source of cash was not explained. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 6 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 6.1 Given these facts, the AO observed that the unexplained investment of 75.15 crore must be attributed to the assessee. The purchase consideration of 710 crore, which was reflected in the registered sale deed, has been duly accounted for in the books of the assessee. However, no in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. for the unexplained investment of 75.15 crore, even though the source of this payment was purportedly explained by M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases. Notably, the seized documents did not contain any evidence to substantiate the flow of such funds. Under these circumstances, irrespective of whether the Assessing Officer made additions for undisclosed income in the case of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd., the on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of the unexplained investment under the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For preceding the assessment vear the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused In the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee essentially contends that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in recording that no addition was made in the hands of M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. and in holding that the source of cash was not explained. Printed from counselvise.com We are unable to accept this contention. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal was fully conscious of th M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. had explained the cash payment as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases and that an addition had been made in its hands. However, the Tribunal, on appreciation of facts, found that the assessee ha discharged its onus of explaining the transaction in its own hands with cogent and credible evidence. 8. The scope of proceedings under section 254(2) of the Act is limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The assessee, in the garb of rectification, is seeking a reappreciation of evidence and reversal of the conclusion already reached by the Tribunal. Such an exercise would clearly amount to a review of the earlier order, which is beyond the jurisdiction conferred under section 254(2) of the Act. 254(2) of the Act is limited to correcting obvious, patent, and apparent from the record; it does not confer any power of review or permit reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration of a concluded finding on merits. 9. We, therefore, find no mistake, either of fact or of law, apparent from the record warranting interference. The Miscellaneous Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. We are unable to accept this contention. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal was fully conscious of th M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. had explained the cash payment as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases and that an addition had been made in its hands. However, the Tribunal, on appreciation of facts, found that the assessee ha discharged its onus of explaining the transaction in its own hands with cogent and credible evidence. The scope of proceedings under section 254(2) of the Act is limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The arb of rectification, is seeking a reappreciation of evidence and reversal of the conclusion already reached by the Tribunal. Such an exercise would clearly amount to a review of the earlier order, which is beyond the jurisdiction conferred under 54(2) of the Act. The power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act is limited to correcting mistakes obvious, patent, and apparent from the record; it does not confer any power of review or permit reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration of a concluded finding on merits. We, therefore, find no mistake, either of fact or of law, from the record warranting interference. The Miscellaneous Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 7 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 We are unable to accept this contention. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal was fully conscious of the fact that M/s Loha Ispat Ltd. had explained the cash payment as arising from undisclosed income generated through bogus purchases and that an addition had been made in its hands. However, the Tribunal, on appreciation of facts, found that the assessee had not discharged its onus of explaining the transaction in its own hands The scope of proceedings under section 254(2) of the Act is limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The arb of rectification, is seeking a reappreciation of evidence and reversal of the conclusion already reached by the Tribunal. Such an exercise would clearly amount to a review of the earlier order, which is beyond the jurisdiction conferred under The power of rectification under section mistakes which are obvious, patent, and apparent from the record; it does not confer any power of review or permit reappreciation of evidence or We, therefore, find no mistake, either of fact or of law, from the record warranting interference. The Miscellaneous Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly Printed from counselvise.com 10. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/12/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. onounced in the open Court on 23/12/2025. Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Poddar Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Imperial Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 8 M.A. No. 104/MUM/2025 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the /12/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "