DCIT, MUMBAI V. PARTH CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

MA 218/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Milind Jagtap, as the applicant, and Parth Constructions as the respondent. The revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recall of a previous order that dismissed their appeal due to low tax effect. The revenue argued that the case fell under an exception in the CBDT Circular concerning organized tax evasion, which warranted a reconsideration despite the low tax effect. The Tribunal found that the case indeed involved accommodation entries, thus falling within the specified exception, and allowed the recall of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792668 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Tax effect; Period of limitation; Accommodation entries
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. No.218/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A No.536/Mum/2024& CO No. 104/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Milind Jagtap Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- 17(1), Mumbai Room No. 117, 1st Floor, G- Block, Kauliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051 vs Parth Constructions 24, Sholapur Street Dana Bunder Mumbai 400009 PAN : AAKFP1122A APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Shah Department by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari – Sr.DR Date of hearing : 07/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 05/12/2025 O R D E R PER : RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JM): 1. The revenue has filed this Miscellaneous Application (MA) in ITA No. 536/Mum/2024 and CO. N. 104/Mum/2024 and seeking recalling of common order dated 08.10.2024 wherein the appeal of the revenue alongwith cross objection filed by the assessee were dismissed on account of low tax effect. Hence, the present MA has been moved by the revenue inter alia alleging that the Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A. No.218/Mum/2025 Parth Constructions impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter needs to be decided on merit because it falls within exception clause 3.1(h) of CBDT Circular no. 5/2024 dated 15th March 2024. 2. It is brought to our notice that there is delay in filing the M.A. as not filed within 6 months from the date of order dated 08.10.2024. The applicant has stated that the impugned order was received in the office of PCIT on 10.03.2025 and the M.A. was filed on 20.08.2025, therefore prayed for condonation of delay on that account considering the period of limitation from the date of receiving of the order in the office of the PCIT concerned. 3. The Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has opposed the condonation of delay and prayed for dismissal of MA being barred by limitation. We have considered the submission of the parties and find that there is no delay when period of limitation is counted from the date of communication of the order. 4. On merit, we have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR. At the outset, Ld. DR submitted that since the case involved in accommodation entries and thus falls within the exception clause 3.1(h) of Circular No. 5/2024 as the case falls under the category of organized tax evasion. On the other hand, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee opposed the submission of Ld. DR. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned order as well as circular no. 5/2024. It is evident from the facts of the case as contained in the impugned order that this is the case of addition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged accommodation entries and thus, falls under the exception clause 3.1(h) of CBDT circular no. 5/2024, therefore exercising the power of the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act, the impugned order is Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A. No.218/Mum/2025 Parth Constructions recalled and Registry is directed to fix the matter before the regular bench for hearing in due course. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 05/12/2025 Dhananjay Kumar, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्डफ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "