Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune V. Dinesh S. Rathi, Pune

MA 383/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) seeking to recall a tribunal order that dismissed its appeal against Shri Dinesh Shrivallabh Rathi due to the tax effect being below the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold set by a CBDT circular. The Revenue argued that the case involved 'hawala purchase' transactions, which should be exempt from the monetary limit. However, the tribunal referenced its previous decisions, which did not support the Revenue's position, leading to the dismissal of the application to recall the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137045 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2022
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHNU D BHUTADA
• Keywords: Tax effect; Tax effect
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.383/PUN./2022 Arising out of ITA No.656/PUN./2020 Assessment Year - 2009-2010 The ACIT, Circle-2, Pune. vs. Shri Dinesh Shrivallabh Rathi, 1 st Floor, B Wing, PMT Building, Shankar Seth Road, Swargate, Pune – 411037. PAN: AAPPR 5736 F 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 28.06.2022 passed in it’s main appeal ITA.No.656/PUN./2020 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 28.06.2022 has rejected the Revenue’s Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Assessee by : Shri Vishnu D Bhutada Date of hearing : 21.04.2023 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2023 2 M.A.Nos.372 & 373/PUN./2022 main appeal ITA.No.656/PUN./2022 as involving lower than 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. 3 M.A.Nos.372 & 373/PUN./2022 of 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 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 mutantis mutandis to decline the Revenue’s instant miscellaneous application. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application is dismissed. 4 M.A.Nos.372 & 373/PUN./2022 Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated : 27 th April, 2023. VBP Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Pune. 5. DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. . Guard File. BY ORDER // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.