INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK V. SINDHU JAYPRAKASH NAIR, NASHIK

MA 283/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (MA Nos. 282 & 283/PUN/2022) filed by the Revenue against the common ITAT Order in ITA Nos. 2737 & 2738/PUN/2016, which were dismissed due to low tax effect. The Revenue argued that the assessee's case, involving information from the Sales Tax Department about Hawala Dealers, should be reconsidered under Clause 10(e) of CBDT Circular No.03/2018. However, the ITAT Pune has consistently ruled that such information does not qualify for exceptions to the low tax effect rule, as seen in previous cases cited in the judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777873 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2019
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT v/s Chandrasekhar A Joshi, ITO vs. M/s Param Marketing, ITO vs. Yusuf Gulmmohmmed Patel, DCIT vs. M/s Rang Rasayan
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Circular No.03/2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKNATH ABHANG
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI VIRTUAL HEARING
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIALMEMBER Miscellaneous Application Nos.282 & 283/PUN/2022 (arising out of ITA Nos.2737 & 2738/PUN/2016) निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Nashik V s Smt. Sindhu Jayprakash Nair, Prop. of Kaizen Industries, Shop No.2, Sanket Apartment, Kamatwada, Nashik-422009 PAN: ADLPN0768N Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual Hearing) Revenue by Shri Eknath Abhang – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 25/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue against the common ITAT Order in ITA Nos.2737 & 2739/PUN/2016 both dated 26.07.2018 for A.Y.2009-10 and 2010- 11. The ITAT in ITA Nos.2737 & 2738/PUN/2016 had dismissed the both Revenue’s appeal on account of Low Tax Effect. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.282 & 283/PUN/2022 [A] 2 being disposed of by this common order. We treat the appeal in MA No.282/PUN/2022 as lead case. 2. The Miscellaneous Application No.282/PUN/2022 filed by the Revenue arising out of ITAT Order in ITA No.2737/PUN/2016 for A.Y.2009-10, wherein Revenue’s appeal was dismissed on account of Low Tax Effect. Revenue has pleaded in the Miscellaneous Petition that the Assessee’s case falls under Clause 10(e) of CBDT Circular No.03/2018 dated 20.08.2018. Revenue submitted that in the case of Assessee, there was information from Sales Tax Department regarding Hawala Dealers. Therefore, Revenue has pleaded that ITAT Order in ITA No.2737/PUN/2016 may be recalled. 3. It is noted that ITAT has consistently taken a view that information received from Sales Tax Department does not fall in the exception category. The said view has been taken in MA No.94/PUN/2021 for A.Y.2012-13(arising out of ITA No.785/PUN/2018) vide order dated 04.02.2022. The relevant paragraph 3 of the ITAT in ACIT v/s Chandrasekhar A Joshi MA No.94/PUN/2021 is reproduced here as under : Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.282 & 283/PUN/2022 [A] 3 “3. As regards the contention of the ld. DR that the appeal should not have been dismissed because the addition in this case was made on the basis of information from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra about the assessee indulging in hawala transactions and hence covered in the exception clause of the Circular as referred to above, we find that such a contention has not been countenanced by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in several cases including ITO vs. M/s Param Marketing (ITA No.1872/PUN/2019 dt.30-01-2020) and 3 ITO vs. Yusuf Gulmmohmmed Patel (ITA No.1852/PUN/2019 dt.30-01-2020). Not only that, even the Miscellaneous application filed u/s 254(2) on this issue has also been dismissed in DCIT vs. M/s Rang Rasayan (M.A.No.60/PUN/2019 dt. 14-01-2020). No contrary view has been brought to our notice on behalf of the Revenue. Respectfully following the above precedent, we are not inclined to accept the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue.” 4. We are bound by the decisions of ITAT Pune, therefore, following the judicial precedence, we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. No contrary decision brought to our notice. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue in MA No.282/PUN/2022 is dismissed. MA No.283/PUN/2022 7. Since we have already dismissed the order in MA No.282/PUN/2022 for A.Y.2009-10 above, therefore, our order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for the present appeal Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.282 & 283/PUN/2022 [A] 4 too. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue in MA No.283/PUN/2022 for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 8. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue in MA No.283/PUN/2022 is dismissed. 9. To sum up, both Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06 October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधांक / Dated : 06 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 "