RAJNIKANT RAICHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

MA 128/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajnikant Raichand Shah, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification or recall of the Tribunal's order dated 02.09.2025. The original order had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination regarding the assessee's claims under sections 54F and 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had not adjudicated on the validity of the reopening under section 147, which was factually incorrect as per the Tribunal's earlier findings. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to reviewing or reappreciating evidence or substituting conclusions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840386 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mumtaz Hazi Mohammad vs. Sagar Enterprise, ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 54F

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.128/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. Nos.1326/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Rajnikant Raichand Shah, A/4, Pratik Apartment, 5, Suketu Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.BEPPS4575E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M K Patel, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 13.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") seeking rectification and/or recall of the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1326/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16, whereby the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the claim under sections 54F and/or 54EC of the Act. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has contended that Ground No. 1 relating to the validity of reopening under section 147 of the Act has not been specifically adjudicated. According to the assessee, the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding in paragraph 6 of the order that the assessee Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 128/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1326/Ahd/2024) Rajnikant Raichand Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 2– had disclosed the full value of sale consideration in the original return of income and, therefore, the reasons recorded for reopening were factually incorrect. It has been pleaded that once such a finding is recorded, the reassessment ought to have been held to be invalid and void ab initio. The assessee has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, including Mumtaz Hazi Mohammad and Sagar Enterprise, and also on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., to contend that failure to apply the ratio of binding jurisdictional High Court judgments constitutes a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification or recall of the order. 2. We have carefully considered the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application and perused the record. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the scope of section 254(2) of the Act is extremely limited and confined to rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The provision does not empower the Tribunal to review, re-appreciate evidence or substitute its conclusions by taking a different view on the same set of facts. A mistake apparent from the record must be patent, obvious and self-evident, and not one which requires a detailed examination of facts, interpretation of law or reappreciation of issues already adjudicated. 3. On a careful reading of the order dated 02.09.2025, it is evident that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned and detailed order after considering the factual matrix of the case. The Tribunal has noted that although the Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 128/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1326/Ahd/2024) Rajnikant Raichand Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 3– reassessment was initiated on the premise that capital gains were not disclosed, the assessee had in fact disclosed the transaction in the original return of income. At the same time, the Tribunal has also recorded categorical findings that the reassessment proceedings culminated in an ex parte order primarily because of non-cooperation by the assessee and failure to furnish supporting evidence for the exemption claims under sections 54F and 54EC of the Act. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal consciously exercised its appellate discretion to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination rather than annulling the reassessment proceedings. Thus, the course adopted by the Tribunal represents a plausible and conscious adjudicatory decision and cannot be characterized as an omission or mistake apparent from the record. 4. The grievance of the assessee that Ground No. 1 has not been specifically adjudicated, in our view, is misconceived. It is well settled that an order has to be read as a whole and not in a hyper-technical or pedantic manner. The Tribunal, after considering the assessee’s plea regarding incorrect reasons for reopening, has chosen to remand the matter for de novo consideration. Merely because the Tribunal has not expressly used the words “reopening is invalid” does not mean that there is a mistake apparent from the record. The remedy under section 254(2) cannot be invoked to compel the Tribunal to adopt a particular line of reasoning or to arrive at a conclusion desired by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 128/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1326/Ahd/2024) Rajnikant Raichand Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 4– 5. It is also a settled proposition of law that judicial precedents do not have mechanical or universal applicability and must be applied in the light of the facts of each case. The decisions relied upon by the assessee pertain to cases where the reassessment was held to be invalid on the facts prevailing therein. In the present case, the Tribunal has taken note not only of the issue relating to disclosure of capital gains but also of the assessee’s conduct during reassessment proceedings and the absence of supporting evidence for exemption claims. Therefore, the assessee’s contention that non-application of certain judgments ipso facto constitutes a mistake apparent from the record is untenable. Non-acceptance or non-application of a particular judicial precedent, especially where the Tribunal has adopted a different course on the peculiar facts of the case, does not fall within the scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. 6. Another important aspect is that by way of the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is essentially seeking a recall of a well-reasoned and detailed order of the Tribunal and is attempting to reargue the appeal on merits under the garb of rectification. Such an exercise amounts to seeking a review of the Tribunal’s order, which is impermissible in law. The power of review is not vested in the Tribunal under section 254(2), and the limited rectificatory jurisdiction cannot be expanded to reopen concluded findings or to substitute one possible view with another. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 128/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1326/Ahd/2024) Rajnikant Raichand Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 5– 7. We further note that the order dated 02.09.2025 has resulted in restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the assessee’s claims afresh after affording due opportunity of being heard. The assessee, therefore, has not suffered any prejudice warranting interference under section 254(2) of the Act. The Miscellaneous Application, in effect, seeks to short-circuit the remand proceedings by urging the Tribunal to declare the reassessment invalid, which again is beyond the scope of rectification proceedings. In this case, first the assessee filed the original Income Tax Return (ITR) on 19.05.2015 for AY 2015-16, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,02,380/-. In this return, the assessee had claimed an exemption of Rs. 41,00,000/- under section 54F of the Act on account of capital gains arising from the transfer of a tenancy right. However, the assessee filed a revised ITR in which the assessee altered the above claim and apportioned the exemption between sections 54F and 54EC of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 27,51,587/- under section 54EC of the Act and Rs. 12,29,518/- under section 54F of the Act. Therefore, it was in light of the intricacy of facts involved, the non- cooperation on the part of the assessee during assessment proceedings and the varying claims made by the assessee, the ITAT was of the view that the matter requires detailed examination after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no mistake apparent from the record has been pointed out in the present Miscellaneous Application. The assessee, through this Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 128/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1326/Ahd/2024) Rajnikant Raichand Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 6– application, is only seeking recall of a conscious and reasoned order of the Tribunal and a re-adjudication of issues already considered. Such an exercise is clearly outside the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act. 9. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/02/2026 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 23602.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 26.02.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27.02.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 27.02.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27.02.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 27.02.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "