Court dismisses appeals due to tax effect below CBDT limit, allowing future recourse. No costs awarded.

The court dismissed the appeals as the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by CBDT circulars, preventing the appellant-revenue from pursuing the appeals further. The court clarified that the dismissal did not prejudice the appellant's right to approach the court again in cases where special orders deviate from Circulars 17/2019 and 23/2019. The court did not address the substantive legal questions raised earlier and awarded no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the additions made by the AO under Section 69A to the taxable income of the assessee are just and proper.
2. Whether the sale proceeds from the transaction of shares amount to Long Term Capital Gain (LTGC) and Short Term Capital Gain (STGC) when the assessee voluntarily admitted to pay the taxes on the additional income.
3. Whether the appeals having tax effect less than the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 3/2018 and modified by Circular No. 17/2019, involving organized tax evasion activity, could be pursued without obtaining a special order from CBDT.
4. Whether Circular No. 23/2019 and Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 would apply to pending appeals before ITAT/High Court/SLPs/appeals before the Supreme Court on the date of the said circular.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Additions under Section 69A
The court examined whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A to the taxable income of the assessee were just and proper. The AO had held that the claims of long-term capital gain and short-term capital loss were bogus and added the amounts to the taxable income of the assessee. This decision was initially overturned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad, and subsequently upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench 'B'. The court did not explicitly resolve this issue due to the overarching impact of the monetary limits prescribed in the CBDT circulars.

Issue 2: Voluntary Admission of Tax Liability
The court considered whether the sale proceeds from the transaction of shares amounted to Long Term Capital Gain (LTGC) and Short Term Capital Gain (STGC) when the assessee had voluntarily admitted to pay the taxes on the additional income. The assessee had retracted the voluntary admission made under Section 132(4) of the IT Act while filing the return. The court did not provide a specific resolution to this issue due to the dismissal of the appeals based on the monetary limits set by the CBDT circulars.

Issue 3: Monetary Limits and Organized Tax Evasion
The court analyzed whether the appeals involving organized tax evasion activity could be pursued without obtaining a special order from CBDT, despite having a tax effect less than the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 3/2018 and modified by Circular No. 17/2019. The court noted that Circular No. 23/2019 and the Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 provided an exception for cases involving organized tax evasion activity. However, the court clarified that this exception applied only to future appeals filed after the date of the circular and not to pending appeals.

Issue 4: Applicability of Circular No. 23/2019 to Pending Appeals
The court examined whether Circular No. 23/2019 and the Office Memorandum dated 16th September 2019 would apply to pending appeals before ITAT/High Court/SLPs/appeals before the Supreme Court on the date of the said circular. The court concluded that these circulars did not apply retrospectively to pending appeals. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear that Circular No. 23/2019 would not apply to pending cases, and any special order from CBDT for filing appeals on merits in such cases was not applicable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, stating that since the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the relevant CBDT circulars, the appellant-revenue could not proceed with these appeals on merits. The court noted that the dismissal was without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the appellant to approach the court afresh in appropriate cases where special orders have been issued by the Board as an exception to Circular No. 17/2019 and 23/2019. Consequently, the court did not answer the substantial questions of law formulated earlier and ordered no costs.

---