TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Years (A.Y.) 2021- 22 & 2022-23. 2. To recapitulate the facts of the case, the assessee, M/s Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, is a part of B-Safal Group and was the developer of the project "Seventy". A search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted in the case of B-Safal Group as well as simultaneously in the case of City Estate Management India and its related entities. During the course of search, certain loose papers and Excel sheets were found from the premises of City Estate Management India and its Director, Shri Pravin Bavadiya, as well as from Shri Divyang Vyas. On the basis of the said material and also considering the other evidences, the Assessing Officer had made additions in the hands....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Ld. AR, the facts being identical, the Tribunal ought to have followed the said decision. Alternatively, if a different view was sought to be taken, the matter ought to have been referred to a larger Bench. It was further submitted that various judicial decisions relied upon by the assessee on the issue of extrapolation of income were also not considered by the Tribunal. The Ld. AR, accordingly, prayed that the order dated 13.03.2026 be recalled and the appeals be adjudicated afresh. 4. Per contra, Shri Deependra Kumar the Ld. SR-DR submitted that the Tribunal had passed a detailed and reasoned order after duly considering the seized materials and its evidentiary value. According to him, no mistake apparent from record had been de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders passed in the cases of Shri Divyang Vyas and Shri Pravin Bavadiya. However, the outcome of the additions made in the hands of those persons was not considered determinative of the issue arising in the assessee's appeals. What was relevant for adjudication in the assessee's case was the evidentiary value of the seized material and its nexus with the additions made in the hands of the assessee. This aspect was examined by the Tribunal in the order dated 13.03.2026. Therefore, the contention that the Tribunal failed to consider or examine the evidentiary value of the documents seized from the aforesaid persons is not borne out from the record. 6. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SK....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he grievance of the assessee is essentially against the manner in which the Tribunal appreciated the seized material, the evidentiary value attributed to it and the conclusions drawn therefrom. The assessee seeks a different appreciation of the same material and a different conclusion from that already arrived at by the Tribunal. Such a course would necessarily involve a re-appreciation of the evidence and reconsideration of the merits of the appeals. The jurisdiction under section 254(2) is confined to rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. It cannot be invoked for re-arguing the appeal, re-appreciating evidence, substituting one possible view by another or reviewing the findings already recorded after consideration of the ma....