Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (OSD), Ward -1 (4), Nashik V. M/s. Tough Metaliks Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

MA 17/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) filing a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall a tribunal order dated 07.07.2022. This order had dismissed the Revenue's main appeal (ITA.No.526/PUN./2019) on the grounds that the tax effect was below the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold set by CBDT's circular no.17/2019. The Revenue argued that the case involved 'hawala purchase' transactions, which should exempt it from the monetary limit. However, the tribunal referenced its previous decisions and similar cases, rejecting the Revenue's plea and maintaining the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137420 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT vs. M/s Rang Rasayan, ITO vs. M/s Param Marketing, ITO vs. Yusuf Gulmmohmmed Patel
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Tax effect
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.17/PUN./2023 Arising out of ITA No.526/PUN./2019 - Assessment Year - 2010-2011 The ACIT, (OSD), Ward – 1 (4), Nashik. vs. M/s. Tough Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., C-155/156, MIDC, Malegaon, Sinnar, Nashik. PIN – 422 103. PAN AAACT2819D Applicant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This Revenue’s miscellaneous application filed u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] seeks to recall the tribunal’s order dated 07.07.2022 passed in it’s main appeal ITA.No.526/PUN./2019 dismissing the same for involving lower than the prescribed tax effect. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that our order in issue dated 07.07.2022 has rejected the Revenue’s main appeal ITA.No.526/PUN./2019 as involving lower than Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee by : -None- Date of hearing : 21.07.2023 Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2023 2 M.A.No.17/PUN./2023 the prescribed tax effect of Rs.50 lakhs as per the CBDT’s circular no.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 made applicable to all pending appeals as well. 3. Learned DR invited our attention to exception clause 10(e) of the CBDT’s circular no.3/2018 that we ought to recall our order hereinabove as such the tax effect limit does not apply to the ‘havala purchase’ transactions in issue. We note that this tribunal’s recent decision in Revenue’s similar miscellaneous application no.60/PUN/2019 dt. 14-01-2020 has already rejected the very pleadings as under : “2. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned through the relevant material on record. Having found that the tax effect in the instant appeal referred to by the Revenue is less than the monetary limits of Rs.50.00 lakh, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue by virtue of CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08-08-2019 revising upward the monetary limit to Rs.50.00 lakh for filing of appeals by the Department in Income-tax Cases before various appellate forums. 3. As regards the contention of the ld. DR that the appeal should not have been dismissed because the additions in the above case was made on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra about the assessee indulging in hawala 3 M.A.No.17/PUN./2023 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 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 adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to decline the Revenue’s instant miscellaneous application. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated 02 nd August, 2023. VBP 4 M.A.No.17/PUN./2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nashik 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.