IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH , JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI NRS GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SAN JAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.21/JAB/2018 (IN ITA NO.129/JAB/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ITO, WARD-1, REWA VS. PUSHPRAJ SINGH, PILI KOTHI, REWA (M.P.) [PAN: AVHPS 2671K] (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI I. B. KHANDEL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI MUKESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 16/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/02/2021 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 16.03.2018, DISMISSING ITS CAPTIONED APPEAL FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. 2. THE PREMISE OF THE REVENUES INSTANT APPLICATION IS THE NON-DISPOSAL BY THE TRIBUNAL OF GROUNDS 1 TO 4 OF ITS APPEAL, WHIC H THEREFORE SURVIVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS PRAYED FOR BEING RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATING THE SAID GROUNDS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI AGA RWAL, WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE EVEN AS THE SAID GROUNDS, WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF T HE ASSESSEES APPLICATION U/S. 154, DISMISSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE NOT D ISPOSED, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED HIS APPEAL ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WHI CH COULD EVEN OTHERWISE BE MA NO.21/JAB/2018 (AY 2006-07) ITO V. PUSHPRAJ SINGH 2 TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT, SO THAT THE STA TED NON-DISPOSAL, WHICH IS ADMITTED, WOULD NOT BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. FURTHER, EVEN THE TAX-EFFECT OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS RS. 13,07,521, I.E., MUCH BELOW THE EXTANT THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS. 50 LACS U/S. 268A, SO THAT A RECALL OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER MAY NOT BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. ONE OF THE GROUNDS (GD. 4) BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ADDRESS AT WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 148(1) WAS THAT SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 139A OF THE ACT, WHICH THUS COULD NOT BE REGARDED A S INCORRECT. THE APEX COURT IN PR. CIT V. I-VEN INTERACTIVE LTD . [2019] 418 ITR 662 (SC), REFERRED TO BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, HAS CLARIFIED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY INTIMATING HIS CORRECT ADDRESS, AS REQ UIRED U/S. 139A, THE SENDING OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 BY THE AO AT THE ADDRESS AVAILA BLE AS PER THE PAN DATA BASE WOULD BE A VALID BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT. THIS SEEMS T O BE THE CONTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT CASE AS WELL, WITH IT BEING FURTHER TRITE T HAT A DECISION BY THE APEX COURT SETTLES THE LAW, SO THAT AN ORDER INCONSISTENT THER EWITH OR CONTRARY THERETO IS THUS MISTAKEN IN LAW TO THAT EXTENT, AND LIABLE FOR RECT IFICATION U/S. 254(2) TO BRING IT IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION (BY BO TH THE PARTIES) THAT THE TAX-EFFECT OF CAPTIONED APPEAL IS RS.13 LACS AND OD D. THAT BEING THE CASE, EVEN IF, ACCEPTING THE REVENUES INSTANT APPLICATION, THE AP PEAL IS RECALLED, THE SAME WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE REVENU ES APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE U/S. 268A OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF THE C BDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019 READ WITH 3/2018, DATED 11/7/2018. NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD THEREFORE BE SERVED BY GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE REVENUES APPLICATION. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DECLINE INTERFERENCE. MA NO.21/JAB/2018 (AY 2006-07) ITO V. PUSHPRAJ SINGH 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX-EFFECT OF ITS AP PEAL. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 16, 2021 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16/02/2021 // TRUE COPY //