ITO, Ward-12(4), Pune V. WALMIK AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, AUNDH

MA 60/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward \\u2013 12 (4), Pune as the applicant and Walmik Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall the Tribunal's earlier order which dismissed the main appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Revenue argued that the case involved 'hawala purchase' transactions, which should be exempt from the monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. However, the Tribunal referenced previous decisions and dismissed the application, affirming that the monetary limit applies and the exceptions cited did not warrant a recall of the earlier decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137301 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2023
• 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 R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.60/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.No.1919/PUN./2019 - Assessment Year 2010-2011 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 12 (4), Pune. vs. Walmik Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., 1-C-1, Flat No.3, Siddhardh Nagar, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. PAN AAACW1680p (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad For Assessee : Shri C.V. Deshpande Date of Hearing : 04.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.60/PUN./2023 filed u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). seek to recall/rectify the tribunal’s order dated 14.06.2022in the corresponding main appeal I.T.A.Nos.1919/PUN./2019 dismissing the same for involving lower than the prescribed tax effect. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that our order in issue dated 14.06.2022 has rejected the Revenue’s 2 M.A.No.60/PUN./2023 main appeal ITA.No.1919/PUN./2019 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 ‘hawala 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.No.60/PUN./2023 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 mutatis mutandis to decline the Revenue’s instant miscellaneous application. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application is dismissed. 4 M.A.No.60/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [R S SYAL] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 07 th August, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-5, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.