THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD V. SHRI NIMISH B.PANCHAL, AHMEDABAD

MA 215/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against an earlier Tribunal order that had deleted a protective addition of Rs. 6,90,77,500 made in the hands of the assessee concerning alleged land dealings. The original Tribunal decision was based on the fact that the main person involved, Shri Ashish P. Patel, had already admitted the income and paid the tax, a fact not disputed by the Department at the time. In the Miscellaneous Application, the Department contended that the income was not offered by Shri Ashish P. Patel in his return and that the matter was part of a larger addition pending appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that it could not reappreciate evidence or review its decision under the scope of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830707 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member The ITO, Ward – 5(2)(3), Ahmedabad (Appellant) Vs Shri Nimish Bharatbhai Panchal, C/3, Kantam Apartments Nr. Ketav Petrol Pump, Ambavadi, Ahmedabad - 380015 PAN No. AEQPP1605C (Respondent) Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit , Sr. D.R. Assessee Represented: Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Date of hearing : 28-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 20-01-2026 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, J.M. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue as against the order dated 12-02-2018 passed by this Tribunal in the Assessee appeal in IT(SS)A No. 143/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. M.A. No: 215/Ahd/2018 (in IT(SS)A No. 143/Ahd/2011 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 215/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Vs. Shri Nimish B Panchal 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006–07 in IT(SS)A No. 143/Ahd/2011 was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2018. In the said order, the Tribunal dealt with a protective addition of Rs. 6,90,77,500/- made in the hands of the assessee in respect of alleged Porbandar land dealings in proceedings under section 153C read with sections 153A(1)(b) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) had treated the addition as a protective one. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, it was brought on record that the main person, Shri Ashish P. Patel, had already admitted this very amount as his income and had paid tax thereon. The Tribunal also noted that even the Ld. CIT(A), in paragraph 34 of his order, had taken cognizance of the fact that Shri Ashish P. Patel had paid taxes in respect of this amount. The Departmental Representative before the Tribunal could not dispute this factual position. In view of these facts, the Tribunal held that once the substantive addition had already been made and tax paid in the hands of the main person, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained and accordingly deleted the same by allowing the assessee’s appeal. 3. Subsequently, the Department filed the present Miscellaneous Application No. 215/Ahd/2018 contending that the Tribunal had committed a mistake apparent from record in allowing the appeal. In the Miscellaneous Application, the Department has mainly alleged that Shri Ashish P. Patel had not, in fact, offered the sum of Rs. 6,90,77,500/- in his return of income or during the assessment proceedings and that the additional income offered before the Settlement Commission had no relevance since the settlement Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 215/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Vs. Shri Nimish B Panchal 3 application was rejected and the rejection was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. It has further been stated that no separate addition of Rs. 6,90,77,500/- was made in the hands of Shri Ashish P. Patel and that the matter was part of a larger addition, against which his appeal is stated to be pending. On these premises, the Department has prayed for recall of the Tribunal’s order dated 12.02.2018 and for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. 4. We have carefully considered the contents of the Miscellaneous Application and perused the record. We find that the Tribunal, while passing the original order, had consciously examined the nature of the addition as protective and had specifically recorded a finding that the very same amount had been admitted and taxed in the hands of the main person, Shri Ashish P. Patel. This factual finding was based on the material placed on record during the appellate proceedings, including documents produced by the assessee, and was also not disputed by the Departmental Representative at the time of hearing. The Tribunal also took note of the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) acknowledging that Shri Ashish P. Patel had paid tax in respect of this amount. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was a reasoned conclusion based on the facts available on record at that time. 5. The issues now raised by the Department in the Miscellaneous Application seek to re-argue the matter on facts and to challenge the correctness of the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal. Such an exercise would require a reappreciation of evidence and a fresh adjudication on merits, which is clearly beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. A Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 215/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Vs. Shri Nimish B Panchal 4 Miscellaneous Application cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or as a means to review the Tribunal’s decision. No mistake apparent from record has been pointed out; rather, the Department is attempting to dispute the factual findings already recorded by the Tribunal. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal has categorically recorded that Shri Ashish P. Patel had offered this income in his hands and paid tax thereon, and this finding was integral to the deletion of the protective addition. The Department has not been able to demonstrate any patent error or inadvertent omission in the Tribunal’s order which would warrant recall or rectification. 6. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.02.2018 so as to call for any interference under section 254(2) of the Act. 7. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department is, therefore, devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-01-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated - 20/01/2026 NK True Copy आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 \u0003ित \u0003ित \u0003ित \u0003ितिलिप िलिप िलिप िलिप अ\u0007ेिषत अ\u0007ेिषत अ\u0007ेिषत अ\u0007ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 215/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Vs. Shri Nimish B Panchal 5 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "