TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the case of Shri Ajit Jogi, wherein the department was in appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable on account of low tax effect by applying CBDT s Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018. Under the same common order [ 2019 (1) TMI 2037 - ITAT RAIPUR] in the case of Shri Virendra Pandey was decided in favour of the assessee, since the substantive addition in the case of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi was deleted by the CIT(A), therefore, it was inferred that if the assessment, where substantive additions have been set aside, in that case the same addition on protective additions does not stand. HELD THAT:- On perusal of such facts, it is evident that there was certain information which was provided by the CBI which was submitted in form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM: The captioned miscellaneous applications have been filed by the revenue, arising against the order of the Tribunal dated 17/01/2019, passed in ITA Nos. 124/RPR/2011 and 191/RPR/2011 both for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Since the issue in the MA s filed by the revenue in the aforesaid cases were on identical, interwoven and connected issue wherein an addition of Rs. 45 lakhs u/s 69A of the IT Act was made in the hands of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi on substantial basis, and the same addition was made in the hands of Shri Virendra Pandey on protective basis. While deciding the impugned ITA s by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ajit Jogi, wherein the department was in appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceptions carved out in para 10 should be contested on merits notwithstanding the tax effect entails is less than the monetary limits specified in the Circular. Accordingly, there was a mistake apparent from records and the same is requested to rectified by recalling the order of ITAT in ITA NO. 124/RPR/2011 dated 17/01/2019. 4. Against the contention raised by the department, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issues raised in the ITA No. 124/RPR/2011 were not covered by the exception clause in Para 10(e) of the CBDT s Circular No. 13/2018, since, the information based on which the department has completed the assessment was collected and not provided by or received from the CBI. Accordingly, as the information was not received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be recalled and the MA of the department may be quashed in absence of cogent evidence to substantiated that the case of the assessee is covered by exception clause no 10 of CBDT s Circular No. 03/2018. 7. We have considered the rival contention, perused the material available on record and orders of the ITAT as well as the revenue authorities. On perusal of the assessment order, it is apparent that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on the basis of statement of Shri Virendra Pandey, the complainant which were recorded on oath u/s 131 of the IT Act, wherein certain transactions pertaining to assessee were unearthed and, therefore, the assessee was requested to present facts and evidences in suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues enumerated in the said para are advised to be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less then the monetary limits specified. Para 10(e) specifies the condition where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Director general of GST intelligence (DGGI) . Consequently, the contention raised by the Revenue in filing of the present MA are found to be on right footing, therefore are appropriate, thus, the order passed in ITA No. 124/RPR/2011 is directed to be recall and to consider the grounds therein for fresh adjudication on merits. 8. In the result, MA 31/RPR/2019 of the revenue is allowed, in terms of our observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the MA filed by the revenue and have prayed to quash the same. 11. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and the orders under considerations. On perusal of the order of ITAT dated 17/01/2019 in ITA No. 191/RPR/2011 wherein the issues raised by the appellant Mr. Virendra Pandey were decided in favour of the assessee, observing as under: 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that additions have been made on protective basis in the case of assessee whereas the substantive additions have been made in the case of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi. We, while deciding the appeal of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi, have here-in-above dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
