DCIT2(2)1, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA G PARIKH, ORIENTAL BUSINESS CENTRE, RAJBAHADUR MANSION,
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Room No.
544,
Aayakar
Bhavan,
M.K.
Road, Churchgate, Mumbai –
400 021, Maharashtra v/s.
बनाम
Rajendra
G.
Parikh,
Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai
- 400 000, Maharashtra
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACPP4545K
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
For Assessee :
Shri Sunil Talathi, (Virtually Present)
For Revenue:
Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Date of Hearing
10.09.2025
Date of Pronouncement
15.09.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated
10.02.2025 is preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 51, Mumbai
[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 22.02.2013 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2009-10. P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2009-10
Rajendra G. Parikh, Mumbai
The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that order passed u/s. 143(3) rws 153A of the Act is bad in law, despite the fact that a search was conducted in the case of JK Industries Limited on 04.02.2011 and the assessee was also covered and warrant was executed u/s. 132 of the Act, during the search and seizure action, incriminating documents were found and seized which comprised of documents, computer backups, etc.?” 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,19,133/-without appreciating the fact the incriminating documents i.e bogus bill of purchase/accommodation entry were found and seized which comprised of documents, computer backups etc. have been tabulated as Table B in the assessment order.” 3. “The appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above. Further monetary limit in filing appeal would not apply in the case as per clause 3.1(h) of CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 3. When the case was taken up for hearing by the Bench, the ld.AR of the assessee raised two preliminary objections to the above appeal stating that it was not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular no.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.It is claimed that the tax effect in this particular case was only Rs 4,69,412/-.Besides, the case is also not covered under any of exception clauses as wrongly stated by the Revenue in ground no.3 (supra).It was further submitted that the appeal was delayed.
In response the ld.DR contented that in so far as the delay is concerned, appeal of the revenue was delayed for which an application has been filed for condonation thereof as there was sufficient cause for P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2009-10
Rajendra G. Parikh, Mumbai such delay which was not intentional and occurred due to bonafide reasons.
4.1 With regard to the tax effect, it was argued that the tax effect is immaterial as the appeal was covered by the clause 3.1(h) of the above
Circular which provides for exception in respect of cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries. He referred to the assessment order wherein such issues have been duly discussed. It was also stated that it was a case of accommodation bills also as discussed in the assessment. However, he was fair enough to admit that none of the bogus accommodation transactions pertained to the relevant assessment year 2009-10 but to subsequent years.
5. In rejoinder the ld.AR has contented that in the instant case, no issue involving penny stock resulting in bogus capital gain/loss or accommodation entry are involved.
6. We have carefully perused the records. The delay is condoned.
In so far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, we have examined the relevant Circular. For ready reference the above CBDT
Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 is reproduced below:
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2009-10
Rajendra G. Parikh, Mumbai
"2. In supersession of the above referred communications issued by CBDT, the following may be noted in respect of departmental appeals to be filed before ITATs and HCs and SLPs/ appeals before SC:
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 c. Where the assessment is based on information in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed under any other law received from any of the law enforcement or intelligence agencies such as CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO, NIA, NCB, DGGI, state law enforcement agencies such as State Police, State Vigilance Bureau, State Anti-
Corruption Bureau, State Excise Department, State Sales/Commercial Taxes or GST
Department, 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 AY 2016-17
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 P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2009-10
Rajendra G. Parikh, Mumbai the interest of justice or revenue and specified so by a circular issued by Board in this regard."
7. Accordingly, we find sufficient merits in the contentions of the ld.AR as the exception clause 3.1(h) is apparently not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect and is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. Since the appeal of the department is dismissed in limine due to low tax effect therefore, we do not propose to go into the merits of other issues involved in ground nos.2 and 3. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15/09/2025. SANDEEP GOSAIN
PRABHASH SHANKAR
(न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
ददनाुंक /Date 15.09.2025
Lubhna Shaikh / Steno
आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
P a g e | 6
A.Y. 2009-10
Rajendra G. Parikh, Mumbai
विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.