SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA,PUNE V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE

MA 71/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, the Assessee, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against the ITAT's earlier decision in ITA No.24/PUN/2024. The original issue pertained to the Assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of a claimed amount in the assessment year 2018-19. The ITAT had previously compared the figures in the Assessee's return with those in the order and found discrepancies. In the Miscellaneous Application, the Assessee contended that their submissions were not adequately considered. However, the ITAT reaffirmed that all relevant submissions made during the hearing were considered and found no mistake in their earlier calculations or conclusions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781044 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKNATH ABHANG
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL SARDA

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.71/PUN/2024 (arising out of ITA No.24/PUN/2024) निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, 3A/3B, Archies Court Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. V s JCIT(OSD), Pune. PAN: AAZPL4337L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue by Shri Eknath Abhang – Addl.CIT Date of hearing 25/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee against the ITAT Order in ITA No.24/PUN/2024 dated 27.09.2024. Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Miscellaneous Petition is having 21 pages. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.71/PUN/2024 [A] 2 2.1 We have in ITA No.24/PUN/2024 at length considered the submission of the Assessee and decided the issue on merits. We have held that Assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the amount mentioned in the order. We have specifically mentioned in our order that we have compared the figures mentioned in the chart along with figures appearing the Return of Income filed by the Assessee in the paper book. The assessee in the MA petition has alleged that we have not considered the submission of the assessee. However, we have considered the relevant submission which were referred during the hearing and which was relevant to decide the issue. In the order we have specifically mentioned that the available income for the assessee as on 31/3/2017 was Rs.185861033 - Rs.36134056 = 149726977/. Thus, we started the calculation with available income to the assessee. We have not started the calculation with Total Income. We have reduced Rs.3,61,34,056/- which was the Taxes paid by the assessee during those years so obviously that much amount will not be available to the assessee. We have started calculations with Rs.18,58,61,033/- and not the Total Income Rs.12,67,02,885/-as per Return of income. Therefore, there is no merit in the allegation of the assessee. In these facts and Printed from counselvise.com MA No.71/PUN/2024 [A] 3 circumstances of the case, we do not find any apparent mistake in the order dated 27.09.2024. 3. There is no mistake in our statement „the AO is directed to consider Rs.14,47,26,977/- as explained , this amount also includes the amount already considered by the AO…‟ We are stating that there is no mistake in this statement because we started our calculation by taking the figure Rs.18,58,61,033 and not the Total Income as appearing in the return of Rs.12,67,02,885/-. We have presumed that there were personal expenditures between AY2006- 2007 to AY2017-18 at Rs.50,00,000/- only. Therefore, the amount calculated was as under : “Rs.185861033 - Rs.36134056 - Rs.50,00,000/- = Rs.14,47,26,977/-” 3.1 Therefore, there is no apparent mistake in the order. 4. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1(SC) has clearly explained that ITAT do not have power to review its own orders and power under section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify apparent mistake. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.71/PUN/2024 [A] 4 During the MA hearing we have specifically referred this decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court to Ld.AR. 5. In these facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully following Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra), the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधांक / Dated : 22nd Oct, 2025/ SGR आदेशकीप्रनिनिनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩिधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩिऩय अनर्करण, “बऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइि / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩिऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "