INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JALGAON, JALGAON V. AMRUT NANA CHAUDHARI, JALGAON

MA 83/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon as the applicant and Amrut Nana Chaudhari as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a Tribunal order that dismissed their appeal due to low tax effect, citing exceptions under the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The Tribunal, however, found that the exceptions did not apply as there were no constitutional validity issues or legality concerns with the Board's orders or notifications. The Tribunal also referenced a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal, which did not address constitutional validity but focused on the validity of a notice under section 148 of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792379 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM RATHI
• Keywords: Tax effect; TDS; Accommodation entries; Revision of order; Penny stocks; Bogus
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.83/PUN/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.317/PUN/2025) \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon Vs. Amrut Nana Chaudhari, Bhawani Chowk, At post Parola, Jalgaon – 425 111 PAN : AGXPC1906A Applicant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The Revenue has moved this Miscellaneous application against the Tribunal order dated 24.03.2025 seeking recall of the order as falling under exceptions as mentioned in para 3.1(a)/(b) of CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 2. Learned Departmental Representative contended that the Tribunal passed order dismissing the Revenue’s appeal on account of low tax effect by virtue of CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. He submitted that the appeal is covered by exception clause as per para No. 3.1(a)/(b) in the Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024 not requiring the dismissal on low tax effect and hence the order be recalled. Applicant by : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Respondent by : Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual) Date of hearing : 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 02.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.83/PUN/2025 Amrut Nana Chaudhari 2 3. Per Contra, Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax and there is no need to recall the order. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. From the bare perusal of the impugned order as well as the order of ld.CIT(A), we find that the assessee was granted relief by ld.CIT(A) on the ground that reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was not valid as they have been reopened beyond three years even when the income escaped the assessment did not exceed Rs.50.00 lakh. The contention of the Revenue in the present Miscellaneous Application pertains to the claim that the assessee’s case is covered by the exception clause in Para 3.1(a)/(b) of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. We proceed to extract the relevant para of the CBDT Circular which reads as follows : “3.1 Monetary limits given in paragraph 4 with regard to filing appeal/SLP shall be applicable to all cases including those relating to TDS/TCS under the Act with the following exceptions where the decision to appeal/file SLP shall be taken on merits, without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limits: a. Where any provision of the Act or the Rules or notification issued thereunder has been held to be constitutionally invalid, or b. Where any order, notification, instruction or circular of the Board or the Government has been held to be illegal or ultra vires the Act or otherwise constitutionally invalid, or d. Where the case is one in which prosecution has been filed by the Department in the relevant case and the trial is pending in any Court or conviction order has been passed and the same has not been compounded, or e. Where strictures/adverse comments have been passed and/or cost has been levied against the Department of Revenue, CBDT or their officers, or Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.83/PUN/2025 Amrut Nana Chaudhari 3 f. Where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A/ 12AA/12AB of the Act, order passed u/s 263 of the Act etc. The reference to cases involving sections referred here, where it is not possible to quantify tax effect or tax effect is not involved, is for the purpose of illustration only. g. Where addition relates to undisclosed foreign income/undisclosed foreign assets (including financial assets)/undisclosed foreign bank account, or h. Cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries, or i. Where mandated by a Court's directions, or j. Writ matters, or k. Matters related to wealth tax, fringe benefit tax, equalization levy and any matter other than the Income Tax Act, or l. In respect of litigation arising out of disputes related to TDS/TCS matters in both domestic and International taxation charges i. Where dispute relates to the determination of the nature of transaction such that the liability to deduct TDS/TCS thereon or otherwise is under question, or ii. Appeals of International taxation charges where the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise. m. Any other case or class of cases where in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to contest in the interest of justice or revenue and specified so by a circular issued by Board in this regard.” 5. On going through the contents of the CBDT Circular (supra), we find that in the instant case there was no issue about constitutional validity of any provision of the Act or Rules nor there is any case of legality of the Order, Notification, Instruction or Circular of the Board. We therefore find that exceptions mentioned in para No.3.1(a)/(b) of the CBDT Circular 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 are not applicable in the present case. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.83/PUN/2025 Amrut Nana Chaudhari 4 6. We also observe that Revenue has raised Grounds of appeal No.3, 4 and 5 referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal dated 03.10.2024. There was no issue before the Hon’ble Court regarding constitutional validity of a particular provision of the Act or Rules. It was only regarding validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and therefore we find no force in the contentions raised by the Revenue in the present Miscellaneous Application being devoid of any merit. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to recall the Tribunal order dated 24.03.2025. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 02nd day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/-/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 02nd December, 2025 Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "