2025 (12) TMI 1533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ily on the ground that has been culled out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the petition, which we reproduce as under:- "6. The Appeal was substantively heard by the Hon'ble High Court on 22.08.2025 on the issue of maintainability of the Appeal filed, on ground of low tax effect. The Counsel of the Respondent submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that in view of the fact that the Appeal was filed on 23.01.2024 and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court on 24.01.2024, the Revenue being bound by the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued on 11.07.2018, which prescribed that henceforth no Appeal shall be filed in cases before High Court where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs and which monetary limit had be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant, which is s enclosed as Annexure A-2. 9. The Arguments in the Appeal was finally heard by the Hon'ble High Court on 04.09.2025 and the Judgment was reserved. It is humbly submitted that the arguments related firstly on the ground of maintainability of the Appeal filed by the Revenue on ground of low tax effect and the applicability of the exception provided for in para no. 3.1 (h) of the New Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2025, on the Appeal which was filed on 23.01.204 and in which the Question of Law was framed on 24.01.2024, meaning thereby whether the newly inserted exception on 17.09.2025 would be retrospectively applicable on 24.01.2024. In this regard the Counsel for the Respondent in support of his arguments also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries". 5. The case of the Revenue is that this appeal falls within the exception (h), which we have reproduced above. It is correct that the submission was made by Mr. Arvind Kumar, counsel for the respondent/review petitioner, but this Court has not given its finding on the same and the same is inadvertent. 6. In any case, having considered the record, it is clear that the case of the appellant/Revenue before the Assessing Officer and also the CIT (Appeals) was of accommodation entry. If that be so, the case surely falls within the exception (h). 7. Hence, the plea in that regard on behalf of the respondent/assessee/review petitioner is liable to be rejected. 8. Having s....