RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI V. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

MA 57/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Raheja Legacy Trust, which sought rectification of a mistake in a previous Tribunal order concerning the addition of unexplained cash credits to its income for the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal had earlier reduced the addition from a much higher amount after examining the genuineness of various loans recorded in the Trust's books. The Trust's application argued that certain loans were wrongly treated as unexplained, providing evidence such as loan confirmations and bank statements. However, the Tribunal found that the Trust was essentially seeking a review of the decision, which is not permissible under the guise of rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712915 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAM K.
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rectification of order
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P. AND SHRI O.P. KANT, AM MA No. 57/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2268/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Raheja Legacy Trust, 5th Floor, Raheja Centre Point, 249, CST Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400098 Vs. ACIT, Circle-22(1), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AABTR 4447F (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Shri Narayan Atal, Shri Bhagrati Sahu & Shri Sunil Ramani Respondent by : Shri Annavaram K. (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 25.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: Captioned application, purportedly filed under Section (u/s.) 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the assessee, seeks rectification of mistake in order dated 28.01.2025 passed in ITA No. 2268/Mum/2024. 2. As per revised/concise question of MA filed by the assessee on 14.07.2025, the mistakes sought to be rectified are as under: Sr. No. Name of the Lenders Para No. Amount of Addition (Rs.) Error sought to be rectified 1. Chandrika Vidyasagar Menon Para 11 35,00,000 (i) Lender’s loan confirmation is on record. Printed from counselvise.com 2 (ii) Loan application form duly signed by the lender, which displays lender’s Name, PAN, loan amount, Bank name and Cheque no. (Page 230 of Paper Book-2, Part 1) (iii) Cheque no., amount and date of cheque are matching and corroborating with Appellant’s bank statement. (pages 230 & 253 of paper book-2, part 1) Same have been allowed in Para 13 of the order. 2. Rajesh R. Nagpal HUF and other 2 lenders Para 14 15,40,000 JAO has already accepted and allowed the loan in the Annexure to his Remand Report. (Pages 580 & 581 of Paper-Book-2, Part 2). 3. Lata Gopalkrishna Mallya and other 9 lenders Para 14 13,00,000 No fresh funds are received (like in case of renewals) and this information is on record. (Pages 584 & 585 of Paper- Book-2, Part 2) 4. Ramesh Kapadia and other 1 lender Para 14 24,00,000 Police complaints have been filed by lenders, and this fact is on record. (Page 582 of Paper-Book-2, Part 2 and Page 118 of Paper-Book-1, Part 1) 5. Nikhil Vilas Wilankar and other 11 lenders Para 14 7,40,500 (1) Lumpsum loans of bigger amounts for each lender is accepted as genuine by CIT(A). (ii) 10 lenders had opening balance as on 01/04/2017 and their loans were found genuine in preceding year (AY 2017-18) scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). (Page 587 of Paper-Book-2, Part 2) Printed from counselvise.com 3 (iii) No adverse finding is brought on record for any lender. 6. Pradeep Sanjay Patil and other 2 lenders Para 14 1,53,000 (i) All three lenders' loans were found genuine in scrutiny assessment for AY 2012-13 and all three had opening balance as at 01/04/2017 (AY 2017-18 was also scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3)) (Page 593 of Paper- Book-2, Part 2) (ii) No adverse finding is brought on record for any lender. 7. Ramesh Bholanath Pandey and other 7 lenders Para 14 1,76,500 (i) All these lenders had opening balance as at beginning of the year (AY 2017-18 was LEGACY Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). (Page 595 of Paper-Book-2, Part 2) (ii) No adverse finding is brought on record for any lender 8. Mahesh Chander Lalla and other 17 lenders Para 14 6,11,500 (1) All these lenders had opening balance as at beginning of the year (AY 2017-18 was scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3)). (Page 589 of Paper-Book-2, Part 2 read with Paper Book-6) (ii) No adverse finding is brought on record for any lender. 9. Adrina Coutinho Adrina and lenders other 44 Para 14 30,46,000 (i) All, except 7 of these lenders whose loans during the year aggregates to Rs.4,28,000/-, had opening balance as at beginning of the year (AY 2017-18 was scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3)). Printed from counselvise.com 4 (Page 591 of Paper-Book-2, Part 2) (ii) No adverse finding is brought on record for any lender. GRAND TOTAL ( 1 TO 9) 1,34,67,500 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. During the scrutiny assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) found outstanding unsecured loan of Rs.304,18,92,727/- appearing in the books of account of the assessee. After examining the materials on record, the AO accepted loan amounting to Rs.46,90,38,381/- as genuine. The balance amount of Rs.257,28,54,346/- was added back to the income of the assessee by treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned First Appellate Authority. After verifying the evidences and other materials on record, learned First Appellate Authority having found that major part of the loan appearing in the books were taken in earlier assessment year and have only been renewed in the impugned assessment year deleted the addition to that extent. Ultimately, learned First Appellate Authority confirmed the addition for an amount of Rs.3,64,82,500/- . 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of learned First Appellate Authority, both the assessee and the Revenue came up in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 5 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee and Revenue and going through the evidence available on record, the Tribunal granted further relief to the assessee by restricting the addition to Rs.1,34,67,500/-. 6. On a careful reading of the appellate order passed by the Tribunal, it can be seen that the Tribunal had gone through and appreciated the evidences and materials available on record and wherever the Tribunal found that the loan transactions are genuine, relief was granted to the assessee. However, wherever, the assessee failed to prove the loan transactions with clinching evidence, the Tribunal confirmed the addition to that extent. The observations of the Tribunal in respect of the loan transactions have been recorded in Paragraphs- 8 to 14 of the appellate order. On a reading of the appellate order, it is very much clear that unsecured loan of Rs.35,00,000/- from Chandrika Vidyasagar Menon was not accepted because the assessee failed to file copies of the bank details and income tax return of the lenders. Similarly in respect of other creditors noted above, in Paragraph-14 of the order the Tribunal has recorded a factual finding that no copies of loan confirmation letter, copies of bank statement and income tax return of lenders were furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of such creditors and genuineness of the loan transactions, hence, the unsecured loan availed of such creditors were considered for addition. The present application has been filed by the assessee merely seeking review of the decision taken by the Tribunal through reappreciation of the evidences already considered. This, in our view is impermissible. In the garb of rectification, the assessee cannot seek review taking Printed from counselvise.com 6 shelter u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In this context, we rely upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021 (SC), judgment dated 03.12.2021. However, in Paragraph- 12 of the appellate order the amount should be read as Rs.23,00,000/- as against Rs.25,00,000/-. In view of aforesaid, we do not find merit in the present application filed by the assessee, accordingly, it is dismissed. 7. In the result, M. A. is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (O.P. Kant) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 31.07.2025 Aks/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "