DCIT.,-3, , MATHURA V. SMT. MANJU LATA AGARWAL, MATHURA

MA 2/AGR/2020

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Mathura as the appellant and Smt. Manju Lata Agrawal as the respondent. The dispute originated from the assessment year 2008-09, where the assessee's return of income was initially accepted but later reopened, leading to an addition of Rs. 38,86,888 as a bogus liability/loan. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, which was subsequently challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, which led to the filing of the present M.A. by the Revenue citing a significant audit objection. However, due to the superseding Circulars, the M.A. was dismissed as not maintainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779297 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV BANSAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Audit objection; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, DB: AGRA (Through Physical / Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.- 2/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA No.- 464/Del/2017 & CO No.37/Agr/2018 [Assessment Years: 2008-09] Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Mathura. VS Smt. Manju Lata Agrawal, W/o sh. Narayan Das Agrawal, 200/1, Yugal Niwas, Ramanreti Vrindavan, Mathura. PAN- AAWPA0049B Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Rajeev Bansal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MA’) has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 18.02.2019 in ITA No.464/Agr/2017. In this case assessee had filed her return of income (ROI) on 31.12.2008 declaring total income of Printed from counselvise.com MA No.- 2/AGR/2020 Manju Lata Agarwal 2 Rs. 70,50,050/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) at a total income of Rs.70,85,400/- on 16.12.2008. Thereafter, this case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons and statutory notice u/s 148 was issued on 16.12.2015. In response to the same assessee has submitted her reply on 24.03.2015 wherein it was stated that her originally filed return may be treated as filed under section 148. 2.1 Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 38,86,888/- by disallowing the said amount as a bogus liability / loan from M/s Kashinath Bank Ltd., which had been merged with State Bank of India. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 18.09.2017 deleted the said addition. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 18.02.2019 on the ground of low tax effect. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.- 2/AGR/2020 Manju Lata Agarwal 3 5. In the present M.A, it has been submitted that, even though the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than 20 lakhs, but the case is covered in para 10(c) of the circular no. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 which was subsequently modified by circular dated 20.08.2018. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have considered the facts of the case. The para 3(c) of the amended para 10 of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 20.08.2018 relied upon by the department is reproduced as under: “(c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or” 6.1 However, the CBDT has issued two recent Circulars u/s 268A of the Act, - Circular no. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular no. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Circular no. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, has been issued in supersession of Circular no. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 which has been relied upon by the department in its present M.A. We further note that in these two circulars, the exception clause relating to issues arising out of audit objections does not find place. Further, para 5 of the Circular no. 9/2024, dated Printed from counselvise.com MA No.- 2/AGR/2020 Manju Lata Agarwal 4 17.09.2024 states that the circular no. 5/2024, dated15.03.2024 shall apply to the SLPs/ appeals pending before the Supreme Court/ High Court/ Tribunal, which may accordingly be withdrawn. 6.2 In view of the above Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024, issued by the CBDT, this M.A. of the Revenue is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. 7. In the result, M.A. of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 13.10.2025. Pooja Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra, Printed from counselvise.com "