ACIT221MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVESH NAVINCHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the Department against order dated 10.09.2025passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the AY 2010-11. 2. When the appeal was called out, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect on the quantum of addition disputed by the Revenue is below

the monetary of limit of Rs.60,00,000/-, hence the appeal is not maintainable in terms with CBDT Circular No.15.03.2024. 3. On this preliminary issue, we have heard the parties. As could be seen from the facts on record. The assessee is a trader in Iron and Steel Goods. In course of scrutiny assessment proceeding, to verify the purchases shown the assessee the AO issued notices u/s. 133(6) to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) selling parties. In response, all selling parties furnished their reply except two parties, namely, M/s Kissan and M/s Sujani International Pvt. Ltd. Thus, doubting the genuineness of such purchases, the Assessing Officer disallowed them,. The assessee contested the disallowance before the First Appellate Authority. In course of proceeding before the First Appellate Authority, based on additional evidences furnished by the assessee a remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. After verifying the evidences, the Assessing Officer though found them in order however, he did not accept the purchases from Sujani International to be genuine. However, Considering the fact that all supporting evidences furnished by the assessee were found to be in order by the AO the First Appellate Authority deleted the addition. 4. Undoubtedly, the tax effect on the quantum of additions/disallowance which is subject matter of dispute in the present appeal, is the below the threshold monetary limit of Rs.60,00,000/- to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal. However, before us ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has tried to explain that the appeal falls under exceptions to the CBDT circular as it is a case of organize

tax evasion. In this context, he has furnished report of the AO dated 01.04.2026. However, on perusal of the said report, we find, except making a general observation that the purchases from Sujani International Pvt. Ltd. is non genuine and indicate organize tax evasion he has not established how it is so. As discussed earlier, in the remand report the Assessing Officer has found all supporting evidences to be in order. Even, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that investigation conducted by any agency or information received from any external agency revealed that the assessee is part of any organized tax evasion. Thus, we are of the firm view that the present appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions. Thus, the tax effect on the quantum disputed in the present appeal being less than Rs.60,00,000/-, appeal is not maintainable, hence dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2026

Sd/- Sd//- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 30th April, 2026 Aks/-

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai